IT'S A QUESTION

meant for

>wanting to hook up with a decoy over the age of 18 is the same as a mass shooting
normie logic y'all

>normie
>ya'll
Alright, that's all i needed to know.

Too be fair the decoy was 15.

they did commit a crime. whether or not you agree with what they did being a crime doesn't matter

>t.muhammed

>t.compulsive liar.

I've started rewatching TCAP thanks to all these threads and I find myself addicted again. I'm pretty sure it's the greatest reality TV show of all time.

Attached: 1560971855665.png (350x350, 133K)

It's even better when you watch it with Yea Forums frens on stream while roasting the goofy predators

>Should Chris wait until your daughter or little sister gets brutally raped before arresting them even if they came in with duck tape

Attached: 57E0A4E3-87E6-4423-A08B-3C867132D7E0.jpg (1024x576, 121K)

chris hansen is a hero

entrapment is a tricky thing but the show is not entrapment.

the decoy never makes the first move. the decoy never suggests they have sex. there's really two options, you bait these guys and catch them, or you allow them to do this shit and actually go to a young child's house and molest them.

also a very strong deterrent. pretty damn smart in my opinion. just don't do it.

Some guys like Michael Wiery are so bad I would prefer they were entrapped and caught than allowed to walk free

The concept is amazing, its pretty simple and you are always bound to find the biggest autists who will make fools of themselves on camera. Surprised no one tried to copy this format.

his hair is graying? isnt he like 30?

Good on him.

Fucking stress man

Intent is questionable with non verbal comm. that’s why they’re taken to a random house for a sting. If you threaten on social media to slice the throat of a dog, and someone reports this to the police, an officer will stop by. Threats are taken seriously.

link to the ep por favor

I'm probably going full autistic, but by the OFF CHANCE you don't understand the legal theory behind it - I'm going to talk about it. This isn't my approval or support of it, but understanding it means you can then have legitimate objections:
In most criminal legal theories, attempt to commit a crime is viewed as a crime. IMPOSSIBILITY is not generally an accepted defense. So the fact that there is no child is not a defense to the attempt of violating one.
A comparison type of case, just to show that the theory exists in other criminal fields. You say “I am going to kill my grandma, I am going to shoot her”. You then go and buy a gun. You load it. You wait outside of her house from 100 feet away aiming at the doorway for when she steps out. LITTLE DO YOU KNOW, the gun is actually broken. It is broken in such a way that a bullet will go a mere 30 feet before falling and hitting the ground. Meaning that, NO MATTER WHAT, it is IMPOSSIBLE that you will kill her with the act you are about to do.
And so she opens the door. You shoot. The bullet makes it 30% of the way to her, and then no further.
Are you guilty of attempted murder? Yes, because impossibility is not a defense to the attempt.

Again, this is just to explain the theory behind it, not to justify it. I hope that helps.

Im 27 and almost fully grey

Its a common genetic thing

What if I plan to steal the moon or Christmas?

I don't believe you are making any such plans because that would be nonsensical and obviously not comparable to the very real threat of preying on children via the internet.

But you knew that already.

You either lack the intent (you don't really think that)
Or you're insane (and we'll give you a break from criminal trials)

You also typically need what is commonly called a 'substantial step' in your scheme. IE: "I am going to kill my mom" is NOT enough. I'd have to go sit outside there ready to fire or it's not a substantial step.

Same with ARRIVING to sleep with a child.

As to how to apply the substantial step concept to the moon? I'm not in NASA, so I don't know.

based