• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Hansen Caught Cheating on Wife

Seriously, I could give a **** about "entrapment". Anyone who takes up someone he thinks is 13 on her offer of meeting then goes on to suggest sex with her and brings over a 6 pack of wine coolers just to seal the deal, deserves what he get. There is no way somebody who's not a pedo that would get caught up in this little sting. Normal guys don't troll teen chat sites hoping to score. Sick mother****ers should be caged, even if we have to use a little bait to catch them.

Yeah I know. You'll throw the laws out the window and encourage government growth and force against those you perceive as a certain kind of "sick".

To me, that's a certain kind of "sick".
 
There are certainly logic overrides one takes when they get into the car to meet an underaged kid under the assumption for sex. However, it does not distract from the fact that the case is made off of circumstance which is encouraged, developed, and baited to produce a certain outcome. And that is IMO entrapment.

You are either unfamiliar with how the stings actually work or are unfamiliar with the legal definition of entrapment.
 
You are either unfamiliar with how the stings actually work or are unfamiliar with the legal definition of entrapment.

I think the system lost track of the legal definition of entrapment long ago. Either or, these set up "gotcha" **** by government goons ain't good. Sure they may be going after a group you don't like now. But bigger, more powerful government is rarely a good thing.
 
Yeah I know. You'll throw the laws out the window and encourage government growth and force against those you perceive as a certain kind of "sick".

To me, that's a certain kind of "sick".

Really? It think it's more sick to want pedos to be able to troll the net unmolested (pun intended).
 
Really? It think it's more sick to want pedos to be able to troll the net unmolested (pun intended).

Well that number ain't ever gonna be zero. And I don't see how it behooves us to authorize improper activity and power by the government in some vain attempt to pretend that we could possibly maybe make it zero.
 
Well that number ain't ever gonna be zero. And I don't see how it behooves us to authorize improper activity and power by the government in some vain attempt to pretend that we could possibly maybe make it zero.

The activity is not improper. These guys are deliberately trolling chat rooms looking for children.
 
The activity is not improper. These guys are deliberately trolling chat rooms looking for children.

And the government is not allowed to facilitate any crime they'd commit and try them for it later. That's entrapment. Lots of people do lots of stuff out there. But the interaction is encouraging the crime, it's baiting the crime. You just can't do that. Not justly anyway.
 
Well that number ain't ever gonna be zero. And I don't see how it behooves us to authorize improper activity and power by the government in some vain attempt to pretend that we could possibly maybe make it zero.

It would be a lot closer to zero if pedos think there's a good chance they're talking to a cop.
 
It would be a lot closer to zero if pedos think there's a good chance they're talking to a cop.

No, not really. It's imagined to be lower, but it wouldn't be statistically lower. If it really came to somehow shutting down the internet to pedo's (won't happen), they would find other ways. The expansion of government and improper activity by government, however, affects us all. Not just pedo's. Pedo's today, the political dissident tomorrow. There's a reason we restricted government, and we should ensure those restrictions persist.
 
Yeah. But isn't that actually entrapment? They're facilitating the crime.

then one could argue[I wouldnt] that the actual 14 yo minor facilitated the crime...right? Did the 14yo minor entrap the Adult into sexting and arranging a play-date?
 
HEY, CHRIS HANSEN? HOW MAH ASS TASTE??!




WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE!!
 
No, not really. It's imagined to be lower, but it wouldn't be statistically lower. If it really came to somehow shutting down the internet to pedo's (won't happen), they would find other ways. The expansion of government and improper activity by government, however, affects us all. Not just pedo's. Pedo's today, the political dissident tomorrow. There's a reason we restricted government, and we should ensure those restrictions persist.

So, it won't won't do any good because you say it won't? Oh come on. These are not political prisoners. I have no concern about innocent guys getting caught up in this because normal guys would never think to agree to what's being suggested. Don't wanna get "stung"? Don't go agreeing to meet kids on the net. Simple.
 
then one could argue[I wouldnt] that the actual 14 yo minor facilitated the crime...right? Did the 14yo minor entrap the Adult into sexting and arranging a play-date?

The actual 14 year old girl is a real 14 year old girl with rights and liberties and the inability to give consent. That's why there's a difference between police pretending and an actual person.
 
So, it won't won't do any good because you say it won't? Oh come on. These are not political prisoners. I have no concern about innocent guys getting caught up in this because normal guys would never think to agree to what's being suggested. Don't wanna get "stung"? Don't go agreeing to meet kids on the net. Simple.


I don't. But so you know the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument is a terrible argument which only means that you have no proper argument against the expansion of force.
 
Tsk, tsk, tsk. How dumb can we get. This guy should be in congress.

Everything you do is video recorded. And being famous then people are going to recognize you. Who doesn't know that by now. Isn't it time for another congressman to get caught on video by the way? The Weiner story had ridden off into the sunset so it is time for the next moron.
 
Last edited:
There are so many problems with this, and the reason why a bunch of the cases on TCAP were thrown out.

1. These "children" initiated the chat by stating their "ages" online. They are in adult chat rooms, not child chat rooms. This right here is enough proof to show that the adult wouldn't have done it otherwise. After all, why go to what should be an all adult chat room to find a child? Makes no sense at all.

2. There is no real child involved. Just like you can't get in trouble for growing fake pot, you shouldn't be able to get in trouble for talking to fake kids. Chatting with someone you "think" is a child, and know this only because of the text "13/f/CA" on a screen does not a pedophile make. You actually have to have a real child involved before a real crime has been committed.

3. Since it is an adult chat room, the adult could easily make the case that they were "roleplaying." That is a very common thing in which two adults will take on "roles", sometimes one a maid the other an owner, one a doctor the other a patient, and sometimes one an adult one a child. He could say "I met her in an adult chat room and was role playing. I agreed to meet up with the ADULT from the ADULT CHAT ROOM that I met online to roleplay in person." Hard to prosecute that case. Especially if he mentions roleplaying in his chats.

4. The adults are getting on the internet with the sole intent of trying to convince an adult to commit a crime. That is entrapment to the letter.

But that being said, you're an idiot if you agree to meet with a "child" for anything nowadays. You can't trust anyone.
 
Last edited:
this is why the enquirer is pathetic. actually I take that back. they are merely performing a service. the pathetic ones are those that pay to read that stuff which makes it a viable business.

justice would be the enquirer using all their subscription money to spy on their readers.

wondering
was this also your view when they broke the john edwards affair
 
Why?

j-mac

His show is horrible, and is a perfect example of television catering to the basest instincts of society in order to boost their ratings. For one thing, a lot of the guys (although not all) who end up on To Catch A Predator walk away without being convicted of any crime, because it's entrapment. Second of all, does anyone REALLY believe any of the rationalizations of how the purpose of this show is to help parents understand how to protect their kids? Of course not. The purpose is for people to gawk and giggle at the creepy guys who get caught. And I'm sure that the people who live in the neighborhood where this show is being filmed just LOVE the fact that they lure sex predators into the community.

Chris Hansen is a sleazy piece of ****.
 
It isn't and even if it is, who gives a ****? Do we not want online pedos caught?

If they're dangerous sex predators, then yes. But when I mean "caught," I mean removed from situations where they can harm someone, and where they can get the psychological help that they need. Humiliating them on national television and making them spend the night in the county jail doesn't exactly mean they got "caught" IMO.
 
this is why the enquirer is pathetic. actually I take that back. they are merely performing a service. the pathetic ones are those that pay to read that stuff which makes it a viable business.

justice would be the enquirer using all their subscription money to spy on their readers.

Normally I would agree, but Chris Hansen is someone who definitely deserves it. His show is just as much of a sleazy tabloid as the National Enquirer is.
 
There are so many problems with this, and the reason why a bunch of the cases on TCAP were thrown out.

1. These "children" initiated the chat by stating their "ages" online. They are in adult chat rooms, not child chat rooms. This right here is enough proof to show that the adult wouldn't have done it otherwise. After all, why go to what should be an all adult chat room to find a child? Makes no sense at all.

2. There is no real child involved. Just like you can't get in trouble for growing fake pot, you shouldn't be able to get in trouble for talking to fake kids. Chatting with someone you "think" is a child, and know this only because of the text "13/f/CA" on a screen does not a pedophile make. You actually have to have a real child involved before a real crime has been committed.

3. Since it is an adult chat room, the adult could easily make the case that they were "roleplaying." That is a very common thing in which two adults will take on "roles", sometimes one a maid the other an owner, one a doctor the other a patient, and sometimes one an adult one a child. He could say "I met her in an adult chat room and was role playing. I agreed to meet up with the ADULT from the ADULT CHAT ROOM that I met online to roleplay in person." Hard to prosecute that case. Especially if he mentions roleplaying in his chats.

4. The adults are getting on the internet with the sole intent of trying to convince an adult to commit a crime. That is entrapment to the letter.

But that being said, you're an idiot if you agree to meet with a "child" for anything nowadays. You can't trust anyone.

It seems clear to me that it's entrapment. But yeah you're stupid for falling for it. Not only because you can't trust anyone, but mostly because you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
200px-Chris_Hansen.jpg

Why don't I have a seat over there.

Too funny. The fact he was caught cheating through hidden camera just makes it all the better. You know the one person that's happy about this?


Pl-pedo-bear.png
 
Back
Top Bottom