• 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!

FBI legitimately runs child pornography site.

They need to demonstrate that it isn't. I don't know how well they scrutinize things like this, particularly with something as emotional as pedophilia. That and DUI are emotionalized to such extremes as to dismiss all thinking. But there were some cases

Joseph Roisman acquitted of being a paedophile after To Catch A Predator 'entrapment' | Daily Mail Online

In some other case, law enforcement had let go 23 suspected online sex caught in a sting.

and there can be issues with it.

I don't know if it's necessarily clear cut. I think we've changed what we'll consider entrapment and for particular issues do our best to overlook those. And apparently there was some other conflicts of interest going on.

So in the end, it's not so simple, and these sorts of sting operations certainly tend to walk the line between "policing" and entrapment.

These are shows using police forces, not the FBI. Not saying that the FBI probably hasn't had some such incidents, but it isn't a normal practice, not from what I've read, at least not for those who aren't trying to sensationalize such things. Even most police forces wouldn't do these things. Shows are trying to get ratings and such things can take a lot more time if allowed to work how most LE agencies would.
 
That "To Catch A Predator" nonsense was entrapment, for sure. But I don't think we care much about entrapment these days.

How else do you plan on catching these guys on the Internet? They are looking for children on the Internet, which is already a felony. Entrapment? Nah. They are serving a valid function and stopping people who are truly vial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The crime was running a child pornography site.

Again. I find my lack of concern is rising the more I see attempts to hassle the FBI for catching pedophiles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Straw Man... if ever there was one.

No it isn't. I wasn't misrepresenting what he was saying. I gave a similar analogy and asked if that was OK.
 
Of course this government is not above using illegal means to get the citizens it wants to get, "the ends justify the means" as long ruled the roost of the Left, and they run the victims programs. They will of course still claim up and down that every view of a child being violated is a new violation of the child, but hey, it's fine and dandy so long as it is the government doing it.

These entrapment of the ones they want to get by conducting criminal acts programs never should have come close to getting approved by SCOTUS, yet here we are.

SCOTUS SUCKS.
 
How else do you plan on catching these guys on the Internet? They are looking for children on the Internet, which is already a felony. Entrapment? Nah. They are serving a valid function and stopping people who are truly vial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We spend over $50 billion a year on the NSA, surely they can help the FBI out with all that expertise our data mining budget has bought, so that the government can find a better way to get the job done then conducting criminal acts......

Ya, that is a joke, because our billions buys darn little.

But that is the way to go.
 
Would you have to run it? I mean leaving it up isn't running it. I mean what would they entail? My understanding is that they didn't cut it off. Hopefully they get every single person there though.

They have to manage it to exploit it to then capture people.
 
Again. I find my lack of concern is rising the more I see attempts to hassle the FBI for catching pedophiles.

No one is hassling the FBI for catching pedophiles. We're harassing them because they ran and distributed a child pornography.
 
We spend over $50 billion a year on the NSA, surely they can help the FBI out with all that expertise our data mining budget has bought, so that the government can find a better way to get the job done then conducting criminal acts......

Ya, that is a joke, because our billions buys darn little.

But that is the way to go.

The NSA is prohibited from targeting U.S. citizens. They are for foreigners.
 
The NSA is prohibited from targeting U.S. citizens. They are for foreigners.

Ya, which is why they would need to teach the FBI, which could easily be done by having data experts leave the NSA and go work for the FBI.
 
Ya, which is why they would need to teach the FBI, which could easily be done by having data experts leave the NSA and go work for the FBI.

That would work. They'd still have to do the warrants and such, but that should be doable.
 
We spend over $50 billion a year on the NSA, surely they can help the FBI out with all that expertise our data mining budget has bought, so that the government can find a better way to get the job done then conducting criminal acts......

Ya, that is a joke, because our billions buys darn little.

But that is the way to go.

You have no idea what our Billions buy. Period. You have no idea what it is they are hacking and cracking every day. You don't know why. You don't know how. You don't know when. That is the point of the NSA.

The FBI has jurisdiction on cyber crime, organized crime, and violent crimes against children. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact is...these people who go to these websites are doing it themselves. How is that entrapment? They are the ones dumb enough to look for something that is not only a major felony, but so morally and ethically repugnant that when they end up in prison...they become targets of murderers, thieves, and other extreme criminals.

So again: you want my sympathy? You want my rage? You want my anger? At what? The government doing one of the few noble functions it actually still serves? **** that. The problem with this country is that we are willing to tolerate these kinds of criminals. We let ourselves become passive and we don't step in. We let this stuff fester. All because someone isn't willing to take action. Or to "appease" someone's very skewed sense of right and wrong. So I will break this down even farther for you...and you can take this to the bank:

Stopping pedophiles is good. Pedophiles are bad. We should stretch their necks with rope and hang them off the ****ing bridges in our country if we have enough evidence. I have 0 sympathy for them or their "rights." And please tell me that it is somehow "morally superior" to let those pieces of **** go to victimize a child. I'm tired of the scum sucking bottom feeding lawyers that sell their souls to the highest bidder. They make cases and get things thrown out because they create a bull**** moral vacuum where they are somehow not responsible for a rapist going free to harm someone else.

So yes. It is a joke. It is a joke that you feel even the slightest bit of sympathy for these worst of the worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You have no idea what our Billions buy. Period. You have no idea what it is they are hacking and cracking every day. You don't know why. You don't know how. You don't know when. That is the point of the NSA.

The FBI has jurisdiction on cyber crime, organized crime, and violent crimes against children. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact is...these people who go to these websites are doing it themselves. How is that entrapment? They are the ones dumb enough to look for something that is not only a major felony, but so morally and ethically repugnant that when they end up in prison...they become targets of murderers, thieves, and other extreme criminals.

So again: you want my sympathy? You want my rage? You want my anger? At what? The government doing one of the few noble functions it actually still serves? **** that. The problem with this country is that we are willing to tolerate these kinds of criminals. We let ourselves become passive and we don't step in. We let this stuff fester. All because someone isn't willing to take action. Or to "appease" someone's very skewed sense of right and wrong. So I will break this down even farther for you...and you can take this to the bank:

Stopping pedophiles is good. Pedophiles are bad. We should stretch their necks with rope and hang them off the ****ing bridges in our country if we have enough evidence. I have 0 sympathy for them or their "rights." And please tell me that it is somehow "morally superior" to let those pieces of **** go to victimize a child. I'm tired of the scum sucking bottom feeding lawyers that sell their souls to the highest bidder. They make cases and get things thrown out because they create a bull**** moral vacuum where they are somehow not responsible for a rapist going free to harm someone else.

So yes. It is a joke. It is a joke that you feel even the slightest bit of sympathy for these worst of the worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was more thinking of what it means for the rest of us when our government gives itself permission to conduct criminal enterprises.
 
In their own words, they found one of the largest cp sites on the deep web. It would be much better to shut it down

Why? So that another one can open up? Now the pedophile scum who post this have no idea where. They can't trust any website. And the ones committing the making and posting the material will be getting visits very soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Explain to us how it's not, rather than just saying "it's not." Your turn.

It's not entrapment. Entrapment requires the police to induce a person they would not have otherwise committed. The people in this case either had already visited the site or actively sought it out. They weren't being induced to a commit a crime they weren't planning to commit.

That said the FBI's behavior is reprehensible. The ends do not justify the means.
 
It's not entrapment. Entrapment requires the police to induce a person they would not have otherwise committed. The people in this case either had already visited the site or actively sought it out. They weren't being induced to a commit a crime they weren't planning to commit.

That said the FBI's behavior is reprehensible. The ends do not justify the means.

So are you saying that once the government took control of he site that they stripped it of all the efforts to promote its wears? Because I gotta say they is a huge difference between a woman walking down the street minding her own business and one dressed as a hooker coming on to me " come over here Baby, have I got something sweet for you!". If I end up buying that sure does not mean I started down the street looking to buy. Retailers with windows have known that for a very long time. Just as shoving tits in my face can be an inducement so can the hard sell on kiddo porn.

We are talking about the erotic here, people have always been and always will be curious, the law and our government must respect that.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. I wasn't misrepresenting what he was saying. I gave a similar analogy and asked if that was OK.

My bad then...
 
In their own words, they found one of the largest cp sites on the deep web. It would be much better to shut it down

I agree. It just isnt entrapment.
 
I think the more people like that who are caught the better it is. If the US cannot do it because of the laws in the US than maybe Canada or the EUropol can take over the website so that the criminals still get caught and convicted.

But I think it is not a problem because it is not entrapment and most likely the disgusting crowd that uses that deep web place is warned they got rumbled as soon as the arrests start happening.
 
So are you saying that once the government took control of he site that they stripped it of all the efforts to promote its wears? Because I gotta say they is a huge difference between a woman walking down the street minding her own business and one dressed as a hooker coming on to me " come over here Baby, have I got something sweet for you!". If I end up buying that sure does not mean I started down the street looking to buy. Retailers with windows have known that for a very long time. Just as shoving tits in my face can be an inducement so can the hard sell on kiddo porn.

We are talking about the erotic here, people have always been and always will be curious, the law and our government must respect that.

Such sites don't advertise. They don't need to. People who want their wares seek them out. It would be foolish to advertise since that could easily get them found out in doing illegal activity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We arrested a drug dealer and while officers were waiting for a search warrant, people kept coming to the door to buy dope. The officers sold it to them and then arrested them. Of course, they whined it was entrapment and lost.

Investigators are also on the internet posing as very young teenaged girls when they're really middle-aged detectives. They're looking for perverts trying to arrange secret meetings with children. Do you have a problem with that, too?

And, don't forget Frank M. Lombard. He was the lovely man who adopted an infant and then offered him to pedophiles on the internet. A police officer posed as an interested customer and Mr. Lombard was arrested. You probably didn't hear about it because Mr. Lombard was a white gay man and the adopted child was a black boy. The media ran from that one. But, Mr. Lombard copped a plea to child porn. Does how the police caught him offend you?
 
Sounds like textbook entrapment to me, as repugnant as kiddie porn is.

Back to the textbook for you. Giving someone an opportunity is not entrapment. For example, leaving packages on the seat of a car and watching while a thief breaks in to get them or pretending to be drunk and getting rolled by a mugger. No entrapment. A uniformed police officer was told a guy at a party in a park was selling drugs. He walked up and asked to buy drugs. The guy said, "You're a cop." "I am but I like to get high." "Cool." He sold him dope. He tried to go with a defense of entrapment, too, but he didn't read the old textbook either.

"In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

I had an instructor in a sociology class at the university who told his class that if you're selling drugs and have the buyer sign a form--which he distributed--swearing under oath that they were not undercover police officers, then if they were undercover police officers they couldn't arrest you because they'd committed perjury. Boy, the police loved guys like him. We got a lot of laughs as suckers had undercover officers signing the forms.
 
Last edited:
OK...this is just disgusting to me. The FBI takes over a child porn site, better than the original owner, and let people view and download actual child porn in order to catch people. Really??? I mean, we need to catch people but doing it in this manner is gross. They need to figure out how to get this done without exploiting children.

FBI ran website sharing thousands of child porn images



What are your thoughts on this? Is the FBI and their methodology justified or the right way to go about it?

Yeah . . . that's how it's done in a fashion that can avoid 'entrapment'.

People come TO them . . . rather than them setting up people and inviting them in.

What do you want them to do, instead? If you have a better suggestion then by all means - write up a solid proposal.
 
So are you saying that once the government took control of he site that they stripped it of all the efforts to promote its wears? Because I gotta say they is a huge difference between a woman walking down the street minding her own business and one dressed as a hooker coming on to me " come over here Baby, have I got something sweet for you!". If I end up buying that sure does not mean I started down the street looking to buy. Retailers with windows have known that for a very long time. Just as shoving tits in my face can be an inducement so can the hard sell on kiddo porn.

We are talking about the erotic here, people have always been and always will be curious, the law and our government must respect that.

Entrapment is kind of slippery. Even if the government advertised the site that alone doesn't necessarily make it entrapment. The line is kind of hazy as far as I can tell but simply leaving someone else's site up and monitoring who accesses it does not rise to the level of entrapment. Should it? Maybe, but my reading of a couple of court cases pretty clearly says it isn't.

You aren't going to accidentally find a kiddy porn site. You can't Google them. You have to actively look for one. So I disagree with your analogy. An even if you were it appears that the people who were arrested went beyond just stumbling on the site - they downloaded images. That to me again clearly indicates someone who was actively seeking out the material.
 
Back
Top Bottom