There's a lot of sick bastards out there

[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.

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.

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.

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="Tyrone Bigguns"]

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.


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.


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."

https://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.

[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.