Homeland official arrested in online sex sting:

[grandpa]

Homeland official arrested in online sex sting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12159118/

"The deputy press secretary for the federal Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, officials said."

Why am I not surprised?

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Because those that claim they know better for ALL, usually don't?

[jose]

There was a time in America, if you wanted to ruin someones career you labeled them ¨a commie¨ these days you accuse them of sex crime, must people look no further,guilty.
maybe the guy is guilty,or not, maybe he had a story to tell?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa Homeland official arrested in online sex sting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12159118/ "The deputy press secretary for the federal Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, officials said." Why am I not surprised? Grandpa h.

Yet the man is technically innocent, for the person he was talking to over the Internet is apparently not a teenage girl. I would put more fault on the so-called "law enforcement" than upon the Homeland official. Again, we see here how entrapment is an all-too-common police tactic.

- Rob

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: osborn Because those that claim they know better for ALL, usually don't?

Attaboy Osborn, right on cue.

There's been several such sting operations that have been televised and I think it was clear that these were individual decisions. I didn't notice that being employed by the government played any particular role one way or the other.

.

[jose]

i´m with colerider on this

[Osborn F Enready]

I'll second the opinion of Mr Autolykos.

Well said by the way Auto.

[Osborn F Enready]

By the way Sonart, I never miss a queue, and I ain't bad with a cue either.

[NoCal]

What a stupid pig this guy is.
I am hoping for castration as punishment...

[tinybear]

He was entrapped. Everybody knows entrapment is a defense.

[NoCal]

Tiny Bear...

So i guess you beleive he KNEW he was being entrapped? What a ridiculous defense.
What if it was YOUR 13 yaer old on line that he was chatting with?
I am as right as the rest of you, but to excuse this kind of behavoir based on party affiliation is nauseating. Give it up. The man is a pig.
End of story.

[tinybear]

I agree it was despicable conduct. But the law's the law.

[Osborn F Enready]

And entrapment, under any guise is WRONG.

[bishop]

i've always viewed child molesters as the lowers form of shit out there.. with all the publicity child molesters have received in recent years, i think i'm beginning to want to see stiffer penalties on sex criminals in general. not sure if a death sentence is a just punishment, but life in prison doesn't sound so bad..

[Osborn F Enready]

Assuming the guy actually does something, yea.

This was entrapment.

[NoCal]

What if it was a Dem? Would you be forgiving him for his behavior?
The man was cruising kiddie porn sites. He is a disgusting piece of shit.

If he had not been 'caught', can you imagine the damamge he could have done?
Not to mention the fact that he is mind-numbingly stupid. Giving this 'contact' all of his info? Federal cell phone #? Pics of him in his OFFICE???
What an ass.

[NoCal]

Let me put it to you this way. If this guy was living in your neighborhood, and the police caught him in his despicable acts, would you defend him because he was 'entrapped'?

[Matt W]

Actually, if the Fed was just sitting there in said chatroom with some screen name, and the official contacted him first - is it entrapment? Just curious.

[Osborn F Enready]

NoCal said: What if it was a Dem? Would you be forgiving him for his behavior?

I say:
You obviously don't know me yet.

NoCal said: The man was cruising kiddie porn sites. He is a disgusting piece of shit

.

I say:
And how would they know he was surfing kiddie porn sites? I am not sticking up for HIM, I am sticking up for the law, something you don't know much about I guess. I suppose if you did, you would be angry that he was baited in entrapment, and will probably walk AS HE SHOULD, since entrapment is Unconstitutional.

I am guessing you are a Rebloodlican, as opposed to a Democrip? :rolleyes:

Nocal said: If he had not been 'caught', can you imagine the damamge he could have done?

I say:
That is regardless of the fact, that the law is only valid if it is applied correctly. This was not. You wouldn't be able to speculate on what harm could be done, if his privacy wasn't invaded to put him in the court of TRIAL BY MEDIA, instead of a court of law, using the LAW to prosecute him once he actually committed a crime.

Pesky rights, always getting in the way of the EMPIRE.

NoCal said: Not to mention the fact that he is mind-numbingly stupid. Giving this 'contact' all of his info? Federal cell phone #? Pics of him in his OFFICE??? What an ass.

I say:
Yea, and proof he would have been caught naturally, if police had followed the law, and caught him actually doing something OTHER than entrapment.

NoCal said: Let me put it to you this way. If this guy was living in your neighborhood, and the police caught him in his despicable acts, would you defend him because he was 'entrapped'?

I say:
Yes. Not only that, I would help him fight it.

Now ask me why.

[Osborn F Enready]

Here is the legal definition of entrapment:

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.