The only way a person who is pretending to be a teenager in a chatroom in order to catch pedophiles would be acting unethically is if they pursued adults whom they believed to be perverts and then forced them to commit illegal acts through duress.
However, if the pedophile does all the "pushing" (as i suspect he might) then he is guilty and has not been wrongfully captured.
Originally posted by chithappens
She is just paid to play the role of flirtatious vixen.In contrast, it would be just like the people who pretend to be teenagers in chatrooms.
So if the husband cheats because the vixen flirts back it's not cheating?
A key point you're missing here, those decoys do not initiate the sex talk and no one forces the men to drive to a house where they believe a horny 14 year old is waiting for them. See?
In regards to a hypothetical scenario where a real 14 year old girl were to flirt with a grown and invite him for over for sex, you're willing to dismiss the adult who drove over and went through with it because the 14 flirted?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The only way a person who is pretending to be a teenager in a chatroom in order to catch pedophiles would be acting unethically is if they pursued adults whom they believed to be perverts and then forced them to commit illegal acts through duress.However, if the pedophile does all the "pushing" (as i suspect he might) then he is guilty and has not been wrongfully captured.
Well it is not like we get to read the chats they have. There is no way to know that.
Originally posted by chithappens
I agree with that but that is a unfair thing for anyone to do.Place them in the situation and then go, " I caught you!"
Again, you're not taking into account that the men initiate the sexual chatting and the men drive over, no one is forcing them. Two crucial facets.
Originally posted by chithappens
Well it is not like we get to read the chats they have. There is no way to know that.
I am quite sure the accused's lawers will have access to the chatlogs- which would have to be recorded as evidence. He would be able to get his client off with the entrapment clause. Thus the program makers would have to work above board, esp now they have law enforcement with them
Originally posted by chithappens
Well it is not like we get to read the chats they have. There is no way to know that.
Chris Hansen usually goes over with what the men said online; without a fault, the men bring sex into the conversation first. The decoys ever post out lines like "14 year old with round ass wanting anal from a 30 year old stud tonight, parents away." and then wait for a biter.
If it happened that way, you might have a point. Though ultimately it would be the man's fault for going through it it as he still wasn't forced.
Originally posted by Robtard
So if the husband cheats because the vixen flirts back it's not cheating?A key point you're missing here, those decoys do not initiate the sex talk and no one forces the men to drive to a house where they believe a horny 14 year old is waiting for them. See?
In regards to a hypothetical scenario where a real 14 year old girl were to flirt with a grown and invite him for over for sex, you're willing to dismiss the adult who drove over and went through with it because the 14 flirted?
For some reason it seems you are assuming I think the adult takes no responsibility. Fault lies with the teenager and the adult.
I did not follow every rule my parents set by a long shot, but it is hard to imagine myself, at any point in life, allowing a grown man into the house that my parents did not know.
Even if they initiate the talks, it is not ethical to continue to bait and then say, "Gotcha *****!" I understand the argument of catching a potential predator, but I don't agree with it.
It's crude, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Robtard
Chris Hansen usually goes over with what the men said online; without a fault, the men bring sex into the conversation first. The decoys ever post out lines like "14 year old with round ass wanting anal from a 30 year old stud tonight, parents away." and then wait for a biter.
😂😂😂😂
Originally posted by Robtard
Chris Hansen usually goes over with what the men said online; without a fault, the men bring sex into the conversation first. The decoys ever post out lines like "14 year old with round ass wanting anal from a 30 year old stud tonight, parents away." and then wait for a biter.If it happened that way, you might have a point. Though ultimately it would be the man's fault for going through it it as he still wasn't forced.
All sexual innuendo is not so blunt and then you would have to "prove" how sexual it really was.
That's kinda rough ground to tread because then you are talking semantics. I doubt everyone is that blunt in their sexual conversation initially.
Originally posted by chithappens
For some reason it seems you are assuming I think the adult takes no responsibility. Fault lies with the teenager and the adult.I did not follow every rule my parents set by a long shot, but it is hard to imagine myself, at any point in life, allowing a grown man into the house that my parents did not know.
Even if they initiate the talks, it is not ethical to continue to bait and then say, "Gotcha *****!" I understand the argument of catching a potential predator, but I don't agree with it.
It's crude, in my opinion.
How is it crude? The men are clearly searching to commit a crime. If it hadn't been a decoy but a horny/naive girl they would have gone through with having sex with a 14 year old.
Tell me, if you leave an empty wallet sitting on the dash of your car with the door unlocked a passerby opens the door and searches the wallet only to leave it because it was empty, is that person still not a thief?
Originally posted by Robtard
How is it crude? The men are clearly searching to commit a crime. If it hadn't been a decoy but a horny/naive girl they would have gone through with having sex with a 14 year old.Tell me, if you leave an empty wallet sitting on the dash of your car with the door unlocked a passerby opens the door and searches the wallet only to leave it because it was empty, is that person still not a thief?
Yes, but that's not the same thing. The door would have to be ajar for anyone to just notice something like that.
Originally posted by chithappens
All sexual innuendo is not so blunt and then you would have to "prove" how sexual it really was.That's kinda rough ground to tread because then you are talking semantics. I doubt everyone is that blunt in their sexual conversation initially.
I've seen many episodes, the majority of the men are that sexually blunt. You're also avoiding that the men busted on the show physically show up at the house, another key point.
The funny thing, if they had keep it to just sexual chatting and didn't show up (or send explicit material) but just masturbated while chatting, they wouldn't have been busted.