Well, I get you are trying to state that MAGA people are pedofiles, and I am not here to stop you from that. But you also assume they catch actual pedofiles. However, there are cases where they have contacted people with an intellectual disability, and then you cannot be really sure the person really is sexually in to children, since with enough pushing you can get such persons to agree to a meeting anyway… just because you pushed. Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
Also many of these “vigilantes” are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a popular subgenre of hate-porn on YouTube that gets a lot of attention. I wouldn’t trust anyone who does this for clout and attention to put in the work that is needed to ensure that they get the right person since you can just about fake any evidence on a YouTube video. This is the equivalent of giving a homeless person thousands of dollars and putting it on YouTube for views.
I remember looking up the people To Catch A Predator worked with and reading some of their chat logs. The decoy was always very upfront in giving an age unambiguously below the age of consent in their jurisdiction, and never initiated conversation about sex or suggested meeting in person.
Of course, the decoy would always agree to do so if the offender asked, but the criminal conduct was unambiguously criminal, and unambiguously the offender’s idea. What we see in this article appears to abandon that sort of rigor to manufacture more opportunities to confront someone.
Yes, though legally that’s a bit of a grey area. It’s only really entrapment if law enforcement or informants entice the offender to commit a crime they weren’t predisposed to commit. I imagine it would be an uphill battle to convince a judge or jury of that when it comes to meeting minors for sex.
The decoys were careful so that it would never even be a question.
Like, they claimed one guy (18) was there to meet a minor (17). When the reporter reviewed the logs it was clear that he was there to meet an 18 year old.
Getting views is more important than catching a bad guy
Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
Speak for yourself.
MAGA would deport you for having the wrong color skin regardless of your citizenship. I’m find with ruining their lives regardless of any crimes committed. This wouldn’t have been the case a couple years ago- but things have changed.
The word pedophile is so weirdly used. If an older man or lady meets a 16 year old… their technically not one, but in this day of age… they would be consider one to society…but they would be consider a Sex Offender. Depending on Level 1 or 2… all depends on what they did and if their state will think they will re-offend or not. Most Level 1’s do not.
It’s not weirdly used. Society always determines what is appropriate. We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18. And any sex without consent is rape.
That said, what is weird is that we conflate pedo and child rapist. You’re describing child rapists.
Teenagers fucking is without consent. Their brains, on the average, are not capable of making that level of decision.
What an absolute crock.
That’s the theory behind the law, OK, but the notion that someone is incapable of consent the day before their 18th birthday, but fully capable the following day, is manifestly stupid. I’ve raised three kids to adulthood. All of them had sexual relations before they were 18 and there’s nothing wrong with any of them. Don’t let religious nuts and the pathologically undersexed make your laws, it won’t work out.
There’s nothing wrong with teens fucking each other. It’s just not “with consent”. Consent is agreement between adults of sound mind. They are not adults.
The issue here is that most countries define the age of consent differently. I think we can agree that when a 16 year old agrees to sexual contact with another 16 year old, the dynamic is different than if they agree to it with a 40 year old. Absolutely. But that does not mean that the 16 year old doesnt understand what they are doing.
Indeed. It’s based on each society. That said, I remember myself at 16. I in no way understood the risk/reward of my choices. It probably took me to 25 to be what I would consider fully conscious.
We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18.
Older criminal laws were based on that idea, usually called “statutory rape”. Modern laws about sexual abuse of children usually ignore the concept of consent entirely to allow for more nuance.
One example of nuance is exceptions for people close in age so that non-abusive relationships between teenagers don’t suddenly become crimes when someone has a birthday. Another is that consent is often a factor in the severity of the penalty.
And I think we’d all agree a sophomore dating a college student would be pretty imbalanced.
I was a college student at 17, but I think you had a larger age difference in mind. I do think we can all agree there should be laws against adults sexually exploiting teenagers.
Well, I get you are trying to state that MAGA people are pedofiles, and I am not here to stop you from that. But you also assume they catch actual pedofiles. However, there are cases where they have contacted people with an intellectual disability, and then you cannot be really sure the person really is sexually in to children, since with enough pushing you can get such persons to agree to a meeting anyway… just because you pushed. Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
This crew also confuses homosexuals with pedophiles, so be careful on Grindr, k?
Exactly. Some of these vigilantes are using this act as a cover to conduct violence against LGBT people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory
Also many of these “vigilantes” are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a popular subgenre of hate-porn on YouTube that gets a lot of attention. I wouldn’t trust anyone who does this for clout and attention to put in the work that is needed to ensure that they get the right person since you can just about fake any evidence on a YouTube video. This is the equivalent of giving a homeless person thousands of dollars and putting it on YouTube for views.
I remember looking up the people To Catch A Predator worked with and reading some of their chat logs. The decoy was always very upfront in giving an age unambiguously below the age of consent in their jurisdiction, and never initiated conversation about sex or suggested meeting in person.
Of course, the decoy would always agree to do so if the offender asked, but the criminal conduct was unambiguously criminal, and unambiguously the offender’s idea. What we see in this article appears to abandon that sort of rigor to manufacture more opportunities to confront someone.
Aka entrapment.
Yes, though legally that’s a bit of a grey area. It’s only really entrapment if law enforcement or informants entice the offender to commit a crime they weren’t predisposed to commit. I imagine it would be an uphill battle to convince a judge or jury of that when it comes to meeting minors for sex.
The decoys were careful so that it would never even be a question.
The article says that they would just lie too.
Like, they claimed one guy (18) was there to meet a minor (17). When the reporter reviewed the logs it was clear that he was there to meet an 18 year old.
Getting views is more important than catching a bad guy
It is not technically entrapment because they aren’t police, but they are cosplaying as cops so the label gets the point across.
real cops do this too, though not execution style.
Speak for yourself.
MAGA would deport you for having the wrong color skin regardless of your citizenship. I’m find with ruining their lives regardless of any crimes committed. This wouldn’t have been the case a couple years ago- but things have changed.
You sound just like them…
The word pedophile is so weirdly used. If an older man or lady meets a 16 year old… their technically not one, but in this day of age… they would be consider one to society…but they would be consider a Sex Offender. Depending on Level 1 or 2… all depends on what they did and if their state will think they will re-offend or not. Most Level 1’s do not.
It’s not weirdly used. Society always determines what is appropriate. We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18. And any sex without consent is rape.
That said, what is weird is that we conflate pedo and child rapist. You’re describing child rapists.
Get the fuck out, man.
Teenagers fuck each other all the time, consensually.
So there goes your argument about people younger than 18 being incapable of giving consent.
For the record, I’m in my 40s and I wouldn’t go out with anyone below the age of 30, before someone accuses me of anything I ain’t.
I hate predators as much as the next person, but let’s not go over to the other extreme.
Children can’t consent. Teenagers fucking is without consent. Their brains, on the average, are not capable of making that level of decision.
But that doesn’t make it illegal.
What an absolute crock.
That’s the theory behind the law, OK, but the notion that someone is incapable of consent the day before their 18th birthday, but fully capable the following day, is manifestly stupid. I’ve raised three kids to adulthood. All of them had sexual relations before they were 18 and there’s nothing wrong with any of them. Don’t let religious nuts and the pathologically undersexed make your laws, it won’t work out.
Exactly my point.
Consent is a legal concept, not a moral one.
There’s nothing wrong with teens fucking each other. It’s just not “with consent”. Consent is agreement between adults of sound mind. They are not adults.
The issue here is that most countries define the age of consent differently. I think we can agree that when a 16 year old agrees to sexual contact with another 16 year old, the dynamic is different than if they agree to it with a 40 year old. Absolutely. But that does not mean that the 16 year old doesnt understand what they are doing.
Indeed. It’s based on each society. That said, I remember myself at 16. I in no way understood the risk/reward of my choices. It probably took me to 25 to be what I would consider fully conscious.
What do you mean by that?
Older criminal laws were based on that idea, usually called “statutory rape”. Modern laws about sexual abuse of children usually ignore the concept of consent entirely to allow for more nuance.
One example of nuance is exceptions for people close in age so that non-abusive relationships between teenagers don’t suddenly become crimes when someone has a birthday. Another is that consent is often a factor in the severity of the penalty.
If there’s no consent, it’s sexual assault at a minimum and more likely rape.
Yes and that’s completely fair. It’s about the imbalance of power. An 18 y.o. and one day, is exactly the same as they were two days prior.
But the cutoff has to be somewhere, and the guy I was replying to was talking about proper adults and 16 y.o.
That’s a highschool sophomore. And I think we’d all agree a sophomore dating a college student would be pretty imbalanced.
The age of consent in many developed countries is 16.
I was a college student at 17, but I think you had a larger age difference in mind. I do think we can all agree there should be laws against adults sexually exploiting teenagers.
deleted by creator
Somebody should tell society their laws need to catch up with that decision!
Your society might have in mine a 14 year old can consent and it wouldn’t be considered rape in that case, still a crime though.
Found the Libertarian