What's people's feelings on this?

[Spectre]

For some reason, I was offered this on YT. He seems like he may not be the most clever of people. A crime has not been committed as there isn't a victim.

I feel there are some entrapment issues here: Listen to the self-appointed authority people detaining him (SJW?). I think that is False Imprisonment. Even if he was guilty of something the way he was detained was unlawful.

He probably hasn't physically done anything, but I think this is a case of people wanting to be internet stars.

At one minute in the cameraman asks the guy if he knows the legal age of consent in the UK and the guy said 18. The cameraman then says "Well, that's even worse because it's actually 16". What does that mean?

You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.

 

[gez]

I think they should collect all the evidence and then hand it to police, they are trained in how to deal with both the situation and the distress caused to innocent family and friends. Also they publish the persons detail and maybe picture thus finding him guilty before a fair trial is given.
It's a shame the police force couldn't have the resources to do this type of operation themselves.
There should also be more severe sentences for offenders.

 

[Spectre]

I think they should collect all the evidence and then hand it to police, they are trained in how to deal with both the situation and the distress caused to innocent family and friends. Also they publish the persons detail and maybe picture thus finding him guilty before a fair trial is given.
It's a shame the police force couldn't have the resources to do this type of operation themselves.
There should also be more severe sentences for offenders.

Thanks @gez.

Another aspect is that he wouldn't have committed a crime if they had not enticed him.

The child did not exist. Perhaps, he wouldn't have went down this route if he had no contact with this vigilante group.

I dislike pedos as much as the next person but I think some of these people, in videos like this, are being exploited. I could set a channel up, pretend to be an underage person, chat with vulnerable adults, then ambush them at a "meeting".

There seems to be an increase in these vigilante groups. Do they do it for free?

 

[gez]

They usually go for " intention to commit an offence or grooming a minor".
They do have strict rules such as when they create the decoy account the decoy minor must not make 1st contact,that has to be initiated by the alleged perpetrator, during the chats the decoy minor is not allowed to lead the conversation or suggest meetings etc.
I don't think they get paid anything.

 

[Spectre]

They usually go for " intention to commit an offence or grooming a minor".
They do have strict rules such as when they create the decoy account the decoy minor must not make 1st contact,that has to be initiated by the alleged perpetrator, during the chats the decoy minor is not allowed to lead the conversation or suggest meetings etc.
I don't think they get paid anything.

There has been no crime though @gez. The "victim" did not exist.

 

[gez]

@Spectre Whilst I agree with that, they do often get other real victims coming forward when they have seen the person being accused on the net, they realise that they are not the only ones being groomed by him, also you rarely see them going after women who do the same or similar, either for themselves or for their partner.
It's the devil or the deep blue sea conundrum.

 

[chookey]

A guy from my town Nuneaton was probably one of the fore runners for paedophile hunting. He goes by the name Stinson Hunter and there was a Channel 4 documentary made about his exploits.
He has caught out loads of them.

The thing we have to remember is that although the "victim" isn't real, the paedo believes they are coming to meet a real person who they believe to be underage. In most cases they have posted sexually explicit suggestions and images and asked for them back in return. They enter these chat rooms for the sole purpose of finding a vulnerable child.

Entrapment it may be, but innocent they are not. A person can be searched in the street and if a screwdriver and an extra pair of socks are found they could be deemed going equipped to commit a burglary. No burglary has been committed, does that make them less guilty?

 

[gez]

Where you from in nuneaton, born and bred there Bryan rd stockingford @chookey

 

[chookey]

Where you from in nuneaton, born and bred there Bryan rd stockingford @chookey

Moved to Camphill from Scotland, then lived on Poplar Farm behind the Bucksford and now I'm Norman Avenue, town centre. My last ex was from Tryan Road and I knew many from that area.
I used to be a regular in the Board Inn, where my mates included the Washbrooks, the Crutchleys, Dave Lewis etc; My footballing mates were Dave Grewcock (Grewy) and Colin Pannell (Noggin) from Blackatree.

 

[Spectre]

Moved to Camphill from Scotland

I thought you had a very Scottish name @chookey (a clan name) . The following comments aren't directed at any specific replies, just my musings on this.

I suppose what I'm interested in here is "thought crime", how that becomes physical, how people develop accusation and how people act. Nobody likes nonces, not even other nonces.

Let's construct some scenarios where a person likes the idea of stealing apples.

Scenario 1

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person takes apple.

That is theft.

Scenario 2

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person likes idea of having apple.
3. Person leaves apple.

No crime.

Scenario 3

1. Person walks past table with no apple.

No crime can be committed.


What I believe is happening is a variant of scenario 2, but, the apple is whispering to the person: "Take me..".

 

[chookey]

I thought you had a very Scottish name @chookey (a clan name) . The following comments aren't directed at any specific replies, just my musings on this.

I suppose what I'm interested in here is "thought crime", how that becomes physical, how people develop accusation and how people act. Nobody likes nonces, not even other nonces.

Let's construct some scenarios where a person likes the idea of stealing apples.

Scenario 1

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person takes apple.

That is theft.

Scenario 2

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person likes idea of having apple.
3. Person leaves apple.

No crime.

Scenario 3

1. Person walks past table with no apple.

No crime can be committed.


What I believe is happening is a variant of scenario 2, but, the apple is whispering to the person: "Take me..".

Good train of thought but the key word is apple.
Here's another scenario

A woman sits in a pub with 2 men discussing murdering her husband for the insurance money. They are overheard and reported to the Police. They don't go ahead with the murder
They are charged and convicted of conspiring to commit murder.

You can replace murder with a few other crimes to reach the same result.

At the end of the day no right thinking adult would arrange to meet up with an underage child let alone actually turn up. When they use explicit language through texts or chat rooms they know what they are doing, when they arrange and show up for a meeting that shows intent.

I can imagine some ways an adult could be wrongly perceived as showing an interest in underage kids but not when they're communicating with them and showing up for a secret rendezvous.
Now where did I put that apple?

 

[gez]

Good points from both spectre and chookey, as said intent is usually enough to arrest and prosecute, if someone believes they are talking with a minor and talks explicit sex talk and also arranges to meet them secretly that's got to be intent, whether or not the minor actually exists may be irrelevant, they have shown what they are and will do the same to another minor who does exist.
If you carry a knife then that is intent to use it at some stage, if you don't use it your still carrying with intent.

 

[Spectre]

intent is usually enough to arrest and prosecute

I suppose that's what I'm getting at @gez, "intent".

I should add another two scenarios.

Scenario 4

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person goes to grab apple.
3. Hand goes thorough apple because it is a holographic projection.

There was intent to steal the apple but that cannot be a crime as there was no theft.

Scenario 5

1. Person walks past a table with an apple on.
2. Person thinks about taking the apple.
3. Person leaves apple.

This is the one I'm most interested in, the "though crime" aspect. Was the person committing a crime by thinking about taking the apple?

 

[gez]

The thought was premeditated but not enacted so no crime is committed in scenario 2.
Scenario 1 that in my book is premeditated and acted on , so although it was holographic projection it is still classed as attempted theft.

 

[VectorZ]

Some lonely half-wit not able to socialise with adults and resorting to friendship with a child, possbily a remedial thing, fair enough that's one thing. Possibly still classed as grooming, depends on the situation but maybe not illegal.

Knowing a person is underage, sending a photo of yourself with your cock out in all its morning glory crosses the line into it being sexual and illegal. Actually turning up to meet the underaged child means you are a dangerous predator either not caring about or not understanding your actions put a vulnerable child in serious danger. You didn't make a mistake.... you got caught plain and simple.

"Oh I didn't mean to strangle her but she wouldn't stop screaming. I made a mistake". How many times have we heard that.

If that is genuine then he deserves to be put away so real children are safe.