There's a lot of sick bastards out there

[justanotherpackfan]

This is an example of the mass number of pedophiles we're dealing with over the internet. Personally, I tried this and it was sickening to see how many 40+ year old men hit on me when I went into a chat room with the username amanda_age13. I owned a couple with Chris Hanson lines and such, but these people should be put away.

The dude in the link below was taken on a screenshot of him in a webcam when someone posed as a teenage girl. It is legit.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=133591991&postcount=1742

This second link, is the link to where it all started and the mass sting of chat rooms.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=7458761

[GoPackGo]

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chris-hansen.jpg

why don't you have a seat over there

[Jimx29]

you know what? I don't want this cookie....I just wanna leave :D

[oregonpackfan]

One of the major TV networks had a sting where an alleged underage girl was agreeing to meet adult men at her home. The girl(who was actually a young looking 18+ year old) met the men along with TV cameras, police officers, and a commentator.

It was really pathetic to see the diversity of men who showed up. Many of them were "respectable" members of society.

[SkinBasket]

Holy shit. I just took a look at that thread. People actually put their webcam on their cocks and jerk off while logging chats to teenagers? Chat rooms are a little different than the last time I checked one out. Of course that was 14 years ago when we all thought pretending to be girls on AOL was the funniest shit ever. Never saw much use for chat rooms after that.

[hoosier]

Holy shit. I just took a look at that thread. People actually put their webcam on their cocks and jerk off while logging chats to teenagers? Chat rooms are a little different than the last time I checked one out. Of course that was 14 years ago when we all thought pretending to be girls on AOL was the funniest shit ever. Never saw much use for chat rooms after that.

It's a little hard to tell whether you're relieved or disappointed that you missed that boat. :P

[SkinBasket]

Holy shit. I just took a look at that thread. People actually put their webcam on their cocks and jerk off while logging chats to teenagers? Chat rooms are a little different than the last time I checked one out. Of course that was 14 years ago when we all thought pretending to be girls on AOL was the funniest shit ever. Never saw much use for chat rooms after that.

It's a little hard to tell whether you're relieved or disappointed that you missed that boat. :P

I'm just glad I don't have a teenage daughter right now.

[Tarlam!]

Holy shit. I just took a look at that thread. People actually put their webcam on their cocks and jerk off while logging chats to teenagers? Chat rooms are a little different than the last time I checked one out. Of course that was 14 years ago when we all thought pretending to be girls on AOL was the funniest shit ever. Never saw much use for chat rooms after that.

It's a little hard to tell whether you're relieved or disappointed that you missed that boat. :P

I'm just glad I don't have a teenage daughter right now.

Mine turns 15 next month. :cry:

[Deputy Nutz]

Holy shit. I just took a look at that thread. People actually put their webcam on their cocks and jerk off while logging chats to teenagers? Chat rooms are a little different than the last time I checked one out. Of course that was 14 years ago when we all thought pretending to be girls on AOL was the funniest shit ever. Never saw much use for chat rooms after that.

This is why I had to put Isabella to bed. Besides the fact that I was even too lazy to do that, I was sick of getting pictures of cock and balls sent to my email. All the guys that wanted to see Isabella for free, and then get pissed off when I tell them they have to pay. Fuckers, men are such fuckers. Isabella just isn't some trap on yahoo, she is a decent upstanding webcam model that shoves wine bottles up her ass.

[Deputy Nutz]

One of the major TV networks had a sting where an alleged underage girl was agreeing to meet adult men at her home. The girl(who was actually a young looking 18+ year old) met the men along with TV cameras, police officers, and a commentator.

It was really pathetic to see the diversity of men who showed up. Many of them were "respectable" members of society.

See above picture.


Anyways, you couldn't help but feel sorry for some of those guys. Then in season two of the show the cops started showing up, and then you laugh because they are going to jail. In fact their was this middle aged man that started crying on the phone to his wife, priceless.

[Patler]

One of the major TV networks had a sting where an alleged underage girl was agreeing to meet adult men at her home. The girl(who was actually a young looking 18+ year old) met the men along with TV cameras, police officers, and a commentator.

It was really pathetic to see the diversity of men who showed up. Many of them were "respectable" members of society.

See above picture.


Anyways, you couldn't help but feel sorry for some of those guys. Then in season two of the show the cops started showing up, and then you laugh because they are going to jail. In fact their was this middle aged man that started crying on the phone to his wife, priceless.

One killed himself when the cops and cameras showed up:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texas-exprosecutor-commits-suicide-after-child-predator-sting.html

[SkinBasket]

Well, at least I learned something about BallHawk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iwLordRVI

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One of the major TV networks had a sting where an alleged underage girl was agreeing to meet adult men at her home. The girl(who was actually a young looking 18+ year old) met the men along with TV cameras, police officers, and a commentator.

It was really pathetic to see the diversity of men who showed up. Many of them were "respectable" members of society.

See above picture.


Anyways, you couldn't help but feel sorry for some of those guys. Then in season two of the show the cops started showing up, and then you laugh because they are going to jail. In fact their was this middle aged man that started crying on the phone to his wife, priceless.

One killed himself when the cops and cameras showed up:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texas-exprosecutor-commits-suicide-after-child-predator-sting.html

If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy.

[GBRulz]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story. :roll:

[Patler]

If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy.

Well, I wouldn't say he did nothing, nor would I make him out as a victim. He conversed with and allegedly set up a meeting with an underage boy. But, he did not show for it, so they went to his house, according to most reports.

But, it actually goes back even farther. According to one report, he was the focus of an investigation and warrant months earlier, which local authorities did not execute. There have been suggestions that he was strung along for three months just for the network to arrive with film crew in tow. This of course is raising questions of entrapment, and what was really done to string him along for so long. Being a prosecutor himself, many say he would have sniffed out a sting operation during the months he was strung along, absent inappropriate measures by the investigators.

Some suggest that without the network there, once he didn't show for the meeting on the night this all happened, local authorities would typically let it go and wait to lure him in again. They argue that the team went to his house just to get footage for the cameras.

But, who really knows?
At what point does culpability attach, only if the meeting occurs?

That was why I provided the link and brought up this case.
Was he guilty of nothing because he didn't show?
Did he have second thoughts because he perceived what he planned to do was wrong, or did his instincts as a prosecutor make him think he might get caught?
Does it even matter why he didn't show?
Was he guilty of something even without going through with the meeting?
What role did the network play that day, or in the months before?

[MadtownPacker]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story. :roll:Exactly!

As I said before about this incident, innocent people dont usually blow their brains out but maybe Tyfool is right and the guy was just misunderstood.

[SkinBasket]

That was why I provided the link and brought up this case.
Was he guilty of nothing because he didn't show?
Did he have second thoughts because he perceived what he planned to do was wrong, or did his instincts as a prosecutor make him think he might get caught?
Does it even matter why he didn't show?
Was he guilty of something even without going through with the meeting?
What role did the network play that day, or in the months before?

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story. :roll:

Yeah, they always have arrest warrans for chatting. :roll:

Yeah, cops never get overzealous. :roll:

There were huge articles about a year ago in many national mags.

Why don't you read this one and then get back to me.
http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907

Let's see:

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force. :roll:

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

[Patler]

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

But then the question is, do you actually have to go through with the meeting, or is setting it up enough? By all reports it was set for a specific day, a specific time and a specific place. Should he be considered "guilty" for having gone that far, or should he be "let off" for not having gone through with it? Does it mater what his reason was for not showing?

[Deputy Nutz]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story. :roll:

Yeah, they always have arrest warrans for chatting. :roll:

Yeah, cops never get overzealous. :roll:

There were huge articles about a year ago in many national mags.

Why don't you read this one and then get back to me.
http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907

Let's see:

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force. :roll:

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

I just knew when Patler posted about the guy killing himself, that you would be the first to jump on it. Funny how that is.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

But then the question is, do you actually have to go through with the meeting, or is setting it up enough? By all reports it was set for a specific day, a specific time and a specific place. Should he be considered "guilty" for having gone that far, or should he be "let off" for not having gone through with it? Does it mater what his reason was for not showing?

Patler,

In this case, he didn't do either. The actor hired to play the kid was the one doing the arranging. Conradt declined to meet and refused to accept his subsequent calls.

It is illegal to chat with minors in a sexual way. No doubt about it. But, the crux of this is how it was handled. They could have very easily shown up at his work and taken him away. There was no need to have Dateline at his house, no need for a SWAT team, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story. :roll:Exactly!

As I said before about this incident, innocent people dont usually blow their brains out but maybe Tyfool is right and the guy was just misunderstood.

Mad,

Please read the article then get back with me.

Blow brains out: Most don't, but a respected DA in the community, one who is a closeted gay man..whose sexuality is for sure going to be exposed..whose life, regardless of the allegations, is going to change..they might.

Furthermore, people guilty of talking dirty with a minor don't blow their brains out either..not for something that is going to be pretty minor in the court system.

I highly doubt they are using swat teams all over the country because some pedo said to a kid..how is your cock?

I'm sorry that you are in a rush to convict. I always believed you were innocent until proven guilty. Guess we don't need that pesky court system when we all can make judgments based on the media..we all know how reliable, fair, accurate they are...they never make mistakes. Just like the police. They never make mistakes. Never get caught lying. Never convict innocent people. :roll:

[Patler]

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force. :roll:

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

In reply to the above:

Your issues #1, #2 and #4 - Does it matter? What do any of these have to do with his guilt or innocence?

Your issues #3 and #5 - Reportedly, they had a warrant issued 3 months earlier which they did not execute for whatever reason. (Some say it was to wait for the network.) I don't think the later one was completely baseless, even if it was partially based on an incorrect belief.

Your issue #6 - So what? Again, no relevance to his guilt or innocence.

Your issue #7 - Friends being in disbelief about the criminal activity of an apparently upstanding citizen is fairly common. That's how the criminal gets away with what he has been doing. No one believes it of him. As for him perhaps doing work - in my opinion, not likely without some other member of the prosecutors office, the police or sheriff being aware of it.

Your issue #8 - again, we have to ask ourselves if this really has an effect at all on his guilt or innocence, as opposed to his "convictability". The others were let go, maybe because of uncertainty about their guilt on the part of prosecutors, but also maybe just because they know technicalities would make a conviction hard to obtain, even though the individuals were believed by prosecutors to be guilty.

Your issue #9 - way to early to make any conclusions based on the civil suit, and yet again we should carefully evaluate issues of guilt/innocence versus the issue of whether or not a conviction could be obtained.

Your issue #10 - because an innocent man was portrayed as guilty, or because a colleague of sorts was inappropriately backed into a position where he perceived suicide as his "escape"?

Your issue #11 - again, in my opinion it would be unlikely and even foolish (but perhaps not impossible) for him to be gathering this type of information for his job without someone else being aware of it.

If the guy was guilty, I have a difficult time working up any sympathy for him, regardless of how the police, the citizen group or the network did their jobs. I do feel sorry for his family, and to the extent that others "forced" him into suicide, perhaps some something is due to the family. On the other hand, if he was innocent of the alleged activity, this was a real tragedy.

[Patler]

Patler,

In this case, he didn't do either. The actor hired to play the kid was the one doing the arranging. Conradt declined to meet and refused to accept his subsequent calls.

It is illegal to chat with minors in a sexual way. No doubt about it. But, the crux of this is how it was handled. They could have very easily shown up at his work and taken him away. There was no need to have Dateline at his house, no need for a SWAT team, etc.

Some reports indicate he agreed to the meeting, but didn't show. Again, all issues that make this such a difficult case to have a firm opinion about.

That being said, television shows pandering to our desires to watch others be humiliated or destroyed personally should be abolished. They serve no reasonable purpose.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Patler,

How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.

My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.

They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.

I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

[Deputy Nutz]

Patler,

How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.

My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.

They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.

I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

I guess he shouldn't have shot himself in the face.

[Patler]

Patler,
How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.
My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.
They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.
I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

We will not ever know his guilt or innocence for certain. However, you seem to be changing emphasis. Originally you said, “If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy." This suggest that you believed he was innocent,"...he did nothing at all...". Now your emphasis seems to be changing to the suitability of the investigation. As I said before, whether investigated properly or improperly may impact whether a conviction could be obtained, but likely does not alter his actual guilt or innocence. I agree there were some questions regarding the whole operation.

Regarding the warrant, of course it is always difficult to ascertain facts from conjecture, but the following is from an article I read:


The recent sting which resulted in the suicide of Louis Conradt may of been saved from an earlier sting operation, in hopes of being shown on Dateline NBC.

Conradt had originally been involved in a sting conducted by the Murphy, Texas Police and Perverted-Justice.com, in July of 2006 without the Dateline NBC crew in tow. The search warrant used in what became a suicide was dated 30 July, 2006, the date consistent with the original sting operation.


Other articles infer the warrants may have been “misdated”. I certainly do not know what is correct.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Patler,
How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.
My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.
They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.
I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

We will not ever know his guilt or innocence for certain. However, you seem to be changing emphasis. Originally you said, “If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy." This suggest that you believed he was innocent,"...he did nothing at all...". Now your emphasis seems to be changing to the suitability of the investigation. As I said before, whether investigated properly or improperly may impact whether a conviction could be obtained, but likely does not alter his actual guilt or innocence. I agree there were some questions regarding the whole operation.

Regarding the warrant, of course it is always difficult to ascertain facts from conjecture, but the following is from an article I read:


The recent sting which resulted in the suicide of Louis Conradt may of been saved from an earlier sting operation, in hopes of being shown on Dateline NBC.

Conradt had originally been involved in a sting conducted by the Murphy, Texas Police and Perverted-Justice.com, in July of 2006 without the Dateline NBC crew in tow. The search warrant used in what became a suicide was dated 30 July, 2006, the date consistent with the original sting operation.


Other articles infer the warrants may have been “misdated”. I certainly do not know what is correct.

I see your point, and where I led you down that path.

The previous posts were about meeting young people. You then posted about the suicide and camera crew.

I meant nothing in regards to meeting with people, setting up a time and place, etc. In that regards he did nothing. He was innocent of that. I see where my post was unclear. Mea Culpa.

He did communicate earlier in IM. No doubt about that. But, he ceased communicating, wouldn't take calls, etc. The question is then the intent of the communication...again, innocent until proven guilty. But, i have no problem with them pursuing a case.

If they wanna prosecute for that..they should. What shouldn't be happening is TV and PV driving an investigation, falsifying evidence (myspace), etc. Basically all the points i covered.

There was no reason for a tv crew to be at his house prior to the police. Hansen and his crew changed the whole nature of their usual M.O.

A SWAT team? For a guy who had IMed? This is akin to a SWAT team busting a house to catch a guy who bought a nickel bag of dope.

they knew who he was, they knew where he worked, etc.

ANd, your point about the sting..it even makes it worse. They obviously had info and then waited until they could film it.

I suggest you read the story from the link provided. Gives a more rounded view of all the participants. It is long, but very enjoyable and quite educating and very moving. I found the part on the actor playing the kid interesting...5K for that. Tyrone make have a new avocation.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it...not saying you will change your mind about Conradt, but more on the whole operation.

[Freak Out]

Its one thing to have a camera cruising around in a squad car when they bust drunks and wife beaters but the way that law enforcement group basically whored themselves out is pretty disturbing. I'm 100 percent for busting sex offenders and freedom of the press but that show is just a bad mix of the two. NBC wants ratings and the people who watch it want to see freaks get humiliated. Use my taxes to setup a sting to bust a fucking pedophile....I'm all for it. But keep the freak show NBC aspect out of it. Our local police force has a very good cyber-crimes/pedophile unit that has done a fantastic job getting some real nasty fuckers off the street but you wont see them prancing around on TV with Howie Mandel anytime soon.

[Patler]

I suggest you read the story from the link provided. Gives a more rounded view of all the participants. It is long, but very enjoyable and quite educating and very moving. I found the part on the actor playing the kid interesting...5K for that. Tyrone make have a new avocation.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it...not saying you will change your mind about Conradt, but more on the whole operation.

Why do you assume I haven't read it? I read it long ago, probably about when it was published. I have also read dozens of other articles about the case since then, including the ruling of the District Court on the motion to dismiss in the civil trial. I have read also several blogs by law professors and various legal topic-specific groups about the initial matter and the civil case. I never rely on a single source for something as significant as this.

I have never disputed that some of what was done may have been improper, it probably was, but that does not necessarily make Conradt innocent, just not convictable on the evidence gathered in that way.

What possible difference does it make how much the actor was paid to play the part of the child?

The civil trial is based on the actions of the parties “forcing” him into suicide, which I think will be difficult to prove. The initial rulings simply were that it was “possible” for a jury to find for the plaintiff, thus the case can go to trial. A fairly low standard is applied for the case to go forward, and a high burden on the defendant to show that the case should not be allowed to go to trial.

I don’t know if the guy was guilty of anything or not, and the entire premise behind TV shows such as this bother me a lot. But even apart from the show, sting operations often bring in people who claim it was their first-ever foray into the activity. I suspect these are often lies. The Conradt case is different because he never went through with the meeting. At least two explanations are plausible:

1. He originally did what he did even though he never had before, but then he thought better about it, and backed out for all the right reasons. He knew it was just something he should not do.

2. His prosecutors’ instincts and experience alerted him that this could be a trap, and so he was trying desperately to extricate himself before being caught.

As I said before, the question becomes this: In the world of pedophilia, at what level of activity does culpability attach?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I suggest you read the story from the link provided. Gives a more rounded view of all the participants. It is long, but very enjoyable and quite educating and very moving. I found the part on the actor playing the kid interesting...5K for that. Tyrone make have a new avocation.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it...not saying you will change your mind about Conradt, but more on the whole operation.

Why do you assume I haven't read it? I read it long ago, probably about when it was published. I have also read dozens of other articles about the case since then, including the ruling of the District Court on the motion to dismiss in the civil trial. I have read also several blogs by law professors and various legal topic-specific groups about the initial matter and the civil case. I never rely on a single source for something as significant as this.

I have never disputed that some of what was done may have been improper, it probably was, but that does not necessarily make Conradt innocent, just not convictable on the evidence gathered in that way.

What possible difference does it make how much the actor was paid to play the part of the child?

The civil trial is based on the actions of the parties “forcing” him into suicide, which I think will be difficult to prove. The initial rulings simply were that it was “possible” for a jury to find for the plaintiff, thus the case can go to trial. A fairly low standard is applied for the case to go forward, and a high burden on the defendant to show that the case should not be allowed to go to trial.

I don’t know if the guy was guilty of anything or not, and the entire premise behind TV shows such as this bother me a lot. But even apart from the show, sting operations often bring in people who claim it was their first-ever foray into the activity. I suspect these are often lies. The Conradt case is different because he never went through with the meeting. At least two explanations are plausible:

1. He originally did what he did even though he never had before, but then he thought better about it, and backed out.

2. His prosecutors’ instincts and experience alerted him that this could be a trap, and so he was trying desperately to extricate himself before being caught.

As I said before, the question becomes this: In the world of pedophilia, at what level of activity does culpability attach?

Take it easy. Is it so wrong to assume you haven't read the article. Like i said, not expecting you to change your mind.

Actor: Who said it did? I just found it interesting that it was an actor..as if that would be a job you prepared for when you were in college/drama school. Don't get your dander up.

Civil trial: I never said, nor do i expect her to win. Though, i personally would like NBC to pay...not saying they are responsible for his death..but their/matthews actions were slimy.

Forays: I agree. No doubt that they have acted on this before.

Explanations: Or, he was doing some research (highly unlikely). Or, he got enough titillation from the IM. From my perspective he was someone who had an unfilled desire, couldn't act on it (being gay) and sublimated it..this type of thing often manifests itself in strange ways.

Culpability: Well, the law clearly states that sexual talk with a minor is a felony. My issue is simply that NBC and PV drove this investigation, weren't especially interested in justice as much as ratings, and that there are degrees of felonies. In AZ possession of pot (more than a gram) is a felony. That however, doesn't mean the police act the same way apprehending a college student with a joint on them as they do raiding a meth lab. Same for Conradt.

[Patler]

Take it easy. Is it so wrong to assume you haven't read the article. Like i said, not expecting you to change your mind.

Actor: Who said it did? I just found it interesting that it was an actor..as if that would be a job you prepared for when you were in college/drama school. Don't get your dander up.

Civil trial: I never said, nor do i expect her to win. Though, i personally would like NBC to pay...not saying they are responsible for his death..but their/matthews actions were slimy.

Forays: I agree. No doubt that they have acted on this before.

Explanations: Or, he was doing some research (highly unlikely). Or, he got enough titillation from the IM. From my perspective he was someone who had an unfilled desire, couldn't act on it (being gay) and sublimated it..this type of thing often manifests itself in strange ways.

Culpability: Well, the law clearly states that sexual talk with a minor is a felony. My issue is simply that NBC and PV drove this investigation, weren't especially interested in justice as much as ratings, and that there are degrees of felonies. In AZ possession of pot (more than a gram) is a felony. That however, doesn't mean the police act the same way apprehending a college student with a joint on them as they do raiding a meth lab. Same for Conradt.

Whose dander is up? I just wanted you to understand that I have a reasonable amount of information on this case, including the one article you keep emphasizing.

You specifically ASKED for my thoughts. Don't get defensive when I give them.

I think the actor issue is irrelevant. Who better to play a role than an actor?

You keep hounding on and on about the use of a SWAT team, etc., etc. In some areas a tactical team is always dispatched to execute a warrant if there is reason to believe the subject of the warrant has access to weapons? Obviously Conradt did, and he used it on himself.

I couldn't care less how many officers respond, it is meaningless to anything in the case. If they want to send 50 officers, fine with me.

I have already agreed that the involvement of the network is something I have problems with.

Even if you are correct that Conradt was sufficiently "satisfied" with the conversation, and would not ever have gone beyond that, should he have been arrested and prosecuted? If the answer is "Yes", does any of that other stuff matter in the criminal matter, or just the civil liability of the network?

[MadtownPacker]

Please read the article then get back with me.

Blow brains out: Most don't, but a respected DA in the community, one who is a closeted gay man..whose sexuality is for sure going to be exposed..whose life, regardless of the allegations, is going to change..they might.

Furthermore, people guilty of talking dirty with a minor don't blow their brains out either..not for something that is going to be pretty minor in the court system.

I highly doubt they are using swat teams all over the country because some pedo said to a kid..how is your cock?

I'm sorry that you are in a rush to convict. I always believed you were innocent until proven guilty. Guess we don't need that pesky court system when we all can make judgments based on the media..we all know how reliable, fair, accurate they are...they never make mistakes. Just like the police. They never make mistakes. Never get caught lying. Never convict innocent people. :roll:Like Patler, I read that article way back when we all had this conversation last time..

He didnt blow his brains out because he was going to be known as a gay man, he did it because he was going to be known as a boy hungry pervert. Big difference.

This guy thought it was worth shooting himself over.

Yeah actually I do believe in swift justice. Kill them all, let the devil sort them out. Save your PC BS about innocent until proven guilty because I have yet to see that law applied to anyone who doesnt have a highpriced lawyer and lots of $$$ to bail out and fight the charges. I can tell you that from several PERSONAL experiences.

What I want to know is why the fuck you are so quick to defend some asshole that was obviously thinking of getting off his rocks off with a kid. If you want to defend him you should follow in his footsteps IMO.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Please read the article then get back with me.

Blow brains out: Most don't, but a respected DA in the community, one who is a closeted gay man..whose sexuality is for sure going to be exposed..whose life, regardless of the allegations, is going to change..they might.

Furthermore, people guilty of talking dirty with a minor don't blow their brains out either..not for something that is going to be pretty minor in the court system.

I highly doubt they are using swat teams all over the country because some pedo said to a kid..how is your cock?

I'm sorry that you are in a rush to convict. I always believed you were innocent until proven guilty. Guess we don't need that pesky court system when we all can make judgments based on the media..we all know how reliable, fair, accurate they are...they never make mistakes. Just like the police. They never make mistakes. Never get caught lying. Never convict innocent people. :roll:Like Patler, I read that article way back when we all had this conversation last time..

He didnt blow his brains out because he was going to be known as a gay man, he did it because he was going to be known as a boy hungry pervert. Big difference.

This guy thought it was worth shooting himself over.

Yeah actually I do believe in swift justice. Kill them all, let the devil sort them out. Save your PC BS about innocent until proven guilty because I have yet to see that law applied to anyone who doesnt have a highpriced lawyer and lots of $$$ to bail out and fight the charges. I can tell you that from several PERSONAL experiences.

What I want to know is why the fuck you are so quick to defend some asshole that was obviously thinking of getting off his rocks off with a kid. If you want to defend him you should follow in his footsteps IMO.

You are making a huge leap about why he blew his brains out.

I'm not defending him...i said prosecute him for the IM.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Take it easy. Is it so wrong to assume you haven't read the article. Like i said, not expecting you to change your mind.

Actor: Who said it did? I just found it interesting that it was an actor..as if that would be a job you prepared for when you were in college/drama school. Don't get your dander up.

Civil trial: I never said, nor do i expect her to win. Though, i personally would like NBC to pay...not saying they are responsible for his death..but their/matthews actions were slimy.

Forays: I agree. No doubt that they have acted on this before.

Explanations: Or, he was doing some research (highly unlikely). Or, he got enough titillation from the IM. From my perspective he was someone who had an unfilled desire, couldn't act on it (being gay) and sublimated it..this type of thing often manifests itself in strange ways.

Culpability: Well, the law clearly states that sexual talk with a minor is a felony. My issue is simply that NBC and PV drove this investigation, weren't especially interested in justice as much as ratings, and that there are degrees of felonies. In AZ possession of pot (more than a gram) is a felony. That however, doesn't mean the police act the same way apprehending a college student with a joint on them as they do raiding a meth lab. Same for Conradt.

Whose dander is up? I just wanted you to understand that I have a reasonable amount of information on this case, including the one article you keep emphasizing.

You specifically ASKED for my thoughts. Don't get defensive when I give them.

I think the actor issue is irrelevant. Who better to play a role than an actor?

You keep hounding on and on about the use of a SWAT team, etc., etc. In some areas a tactical team is always dispatched to execute a warrant if there is reason to believe the subject of the warrant has access to weapons? Obviously Conradt did, and he used it on himself.

I couldn't care less how many officers respond, it is meaningless to anything in the case. If they want to send 50 officers, fine with me.

I have already agreed that the involvement of the network is something I have problems with.

Even if you are correct that Conradt was sufficiently "satisfied" with the conversation, and would not ever have gone beyond that, should he have been arrested and prosecuted? If the answer is "Yes", does any of that other stuff matter in the criminal matter, or just the civil liability of the network?

Patler,

If i think your dander is up..it is because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver...so, if i receive that impression..then perhaps you should examine why i thought so.

I'm not defensive..and as i just posted, then that is my fault if you received that.

Actor: Not really my point. I just found it, as I said, interesting to think that as an actor this type of thing would be a job you get (maybe audition for). I highly doubt when you are attending Madison or julliard you are thinking that someday you'll be talking on the phone to a potential pedophile.

I think to the scene in swingers when Ron Livingston is trying to get the job of goofy at Disneyland..and he is like, "i played hamlet...i was good"...and now he get even find work, cept for goofy.

Swat: C'mon. The didn't go there with a swat because he was a violent criminal. And, having a weapon...ok..first, we have the right to bear arms..and it is TEXAS. The SWAT is overkill...and could lead to a more dangerous situation..for ALL INVOLVED.

THe purpose was to arrest him...do they accomplish their goal. No. Seems to me then we need to examine procedure.

You don't escalate a situation..you de-escalate it.

Number of officers: Matters to me..tax dollars, and clearly there to make themselves look good on TV. Rinky dink operation.

You can't tell me that if two plainclothes officers showed up at his door..rang the bell...he wouldn't have answered it. That is standard SOP for minor issues like this.

Suit: I'm not sure. I do think he was guilty of IM. No doubt about it. I'm not a lawyer, nor do i play one on tv..so, i have to really think about it. What i do know is something really stinks about this..and for some reason i feel NBC should be punished. Now, that may not be according to the law...but, as you know..sometimes juries disregard the law.

I think, for me, this is like they use to say about porn..you know it when you see it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, .

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
trying to forget my feelings of love.
Feelings, WHAAOOOOO-OH feelings,
WHAAOH, feelings again in my arms.

[bobblehead]

Please read the article then get back with me.

Blow brains out: Most don't, but a respected DA in the community, one who is a closeted gay man..whose sexuality is for sure going to be exposed..whose life, regardless of the allegations, is going to change..they might.

Furthermore, people guilty of talking dirty with a minor don't blow their brains out either..not for something that is going to be pretty minor in the court system.

I highly doubt they are using swat teams all over the country because some pedo said to a kid..how is your cock?

I'm sorry that you are in a rush to convict. I always believed you were innocent until proven guilty. Guess we don't need that pesky court system when we all can make judgments based on the media..we all know how reliable, fair, accurate they are...they never make mistakes. Just like the police. They never make mistakes. Never get caught lying. Never convict innocent people. :roll:Like Patler, I read that article way back when we all had this conversation last time..

He didnt blow his brains out because he was going to be known as a gay man, he did it because he was going to be known as a boy hungry pervert. Big difference.

This guy thought it was worth shooting himself over.

Yeah actually I do believe in swift justice. Kill them all, let the devil sort them out. Save your PC BS about innocent until proven guilty because I have yet to see that law applied to anyone who doesnt have a highpriced lawyer and lots of $$$ to bail out and fight the charges. I can tell you that from several PERSONAL experiences.

What I want to know is why the fuck you are so quick to defend some asshole that was obviously thinking of getting off his rocks off with a kid. If you want to defend him you should follow in his footsteps IMO.

You are making a huge leap about why he blew his brains out.

I'm not defending him...i said prosecute him for the IM.
They can't, he shot himself in the face.

[Patler]

[quote=Patler]
Patler,

If i think your dander is up..it is because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver...so, if i receive that impression..then perhaps you should examine why i thought so.

I'm not defensive..and as i just posted, then that is my fault if you received that.



As you stated, if i think you are being defensive,..it is because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver...so, if i receive that impression..then perhaps you should examine why i thought so.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

But.....That's a load of crap. Communication is a two-way activity, it is the responsibility of BOTH the sender and the receiver.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=Patler]
Patler,

If i think your dander is up..it is because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver...so, if i receive that impression..then perhaps you should examine why i thought so.

I'm not defensive..and as i just posted, then that is my fault if you received that.



As you stated, if i think you are being defensive,..it is because of the tone or feeling of your post. Communication is the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver...so, if i receive that impression..then perhaps you should examine why i thought so.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

But.....That's a load of crap. Communication is a two-way activity, it is the responsibility of BOTH the sender and the receiver.

Sorry, but the communication studies people would beg to differ.

It is not the responsibility of the receiver to interpret..though, they are free to ask questions to determine what the message is.

C'mon..they don't have courses called..."become a better receveir." They have them on becoming a better communicator/speaker.

http://www.allpm.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=479

http://deonbinneman.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/whose-responsibility-is-communication/

"Whose responsibility is Communication? The Sender or the Receiver? Let us go back to Comm 101. Communication is at best an imperfect science. Thus it is the responsibility of the sender."

aede.osu.edu/people/erven.1/HRM/communication.pdf

"The model in Figure 1 identifies the major components in the communication process. The process starts with a sender who has a message for a receiver. Two or more people are always involved in communication. The sender has the responsibility for the message."

www.ucsf.edu/swe/pdf/ListenOpenlySpeakHonestlyHandout.pdf

"Cardinal Rule of Effective Communication. It is always the sender’s responsibility. to make the communication. as clear as possible for the receiver. "

As someone who made their living thru communication..technical communication i can tell you that nobody ever says.."wow, i guess i'm stupid for not understanding the directions." No, your job is to write clearly and effectively so they get the message.

[Patler]

C'mon..they don't have courses called..."become a better receveir." They have them on becoming a better communicator/speaker.


Of course they do!:

From a course listing 6 rules of effective communication:


Rule #6: Be a good listener.
The importance of listening to the other party and understanding his/her
viewpoint is often overlooked. Effective communication is two-way process; ......

Anyone who does not recognize that communication is a two way process is doomed to never communicate effectively, in my opinion.

[MJZiggy]

Tyrone, for every course on becoming a better speaker, you'll find a course on being a better LISTENER. Those are not courses in how not to piss off women (well they are but they're more than that) They are there because no message is effective unless it's recipient is listening. Were you not paying attention in your comm classes or something?

[the_idle_threat]

If Tyrone missed that part of the message, it's obviously the teacher's fault. :lol:

[FavreChild]

Communication is a two-way process, as shown by the Communication Model that Tyrone referenced. I teach the Comm Model in a college classroom regularly, so I am pretty sure I have some expertise on this one.

I don't think Tyrone is denying that communication is a two-way process; after all, the receiver becomes the sender when responding to a message by sending feedback. However, Tyrone is correct that the sender has a responsibility to encode a message in a way that a receiver is likely to decode it correctly based on their past experiences. This means making the message clear and connecting it to the receiver's own experiences. Then, the receiver becomes the sender and must do the same thing - encode a feedback message that the original sender is likely to interpret correctly. Rarely does it happen this way, mind you.

So in a way, you are all correct. That's my two cents, anyway.

Why is this being discussed on a thread about sick bastards again??

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, for every course on becoming a better speaker, you'll find a course on being a better LISTENER. Those are not courses in how not to piss off women (well they are but they're more than that) They are there because no message is effective unless it's recipient is listening. Were you not paying attention in your comm classes or something?

No way, MJ. Way more courses on becoming a better speaker than better listener.

And, those courses on better listening...a ton of them are about "reflective" listening..which, of course means repeating back what the speaker said...thus ensuring you heard it correctly as well as making the speaker repeat what was said..or better define what they are trying to say.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Communication is a two-way process, as shown by the Communication Model that Tyrone referenced. I teach the Comm Model in a college classroom regularly, so I am pretty sure I have some expertise on this one.

I don't think Tyrone is denying that communication is a two-way process; after all, the receiver becomes the sender when responding to a message by sending feedback. However, Tyrone is correct that the sender has a responsibility to encode a message in a way that a receiver is likely to decode it correctly based on their past experiences. This means making the message clear and connecting it to the receiver's own experiences. Then, the receiver becomes the sender and must do the same thing - encode a feedback message that the original sender is likely to interpret correctly. Rarely does it happen this way, mind you.

So in a way, you are all correct. That's my two cents, anyway.

Why is this being discussed on a thread about sick bastards again??

Thanx for your input. I agree.

Furthermore, since this isn't oral communication...the responsibility lies with the writer of the post. Clear communication rests on the writer.

As someone who made their living in tech comm/instructional design/training...i would never blame the reader/student for not getting what i'm trying to communicate. I would examine what i was doing wrong...of course, assuming that the person has a modicum of intelligence.

[FavreChild]

Agreed.

[Bretsky]

Bottom line is in a forum communicating is a challenge and undoubtedly influenced by our real life bias and how we perceive each issue.

I'd venture to say that I could interpret one of Patler's posts in this thread far different than Tyrone might.

So why is it anybody's fault if a message is missed ? It's what happens in forums and I don't judge it to be anybody's fault if something is misinterpreted.