Chris Hansen has just put up a new kickstarter project, to launch a whole new season of shows investigating online predators, just like in the original To Catch A Predator shows from MSNBC/Dateline. His new show is called Hansen Vs Predator, and he is looking for backers to help fund it, if your interested in catching some perverts, and getting them taken of the street, then you now have a chance to help out & get involved.Kickstarter: Hansen Vs Predator
Have you ever watched the original shows. They had perverts turning up with condoms, who would come into the house, strip totaly naked and talk about wanting to have the kid have sex with dogs & cats while they watch and masturbate. (I'm not making any of this up)
Also in many cases the police force requested the to catch a predator crew to setup an investigation in their communities. Going so far as to deputize the crew so that they could work within the legal framework, to gather evidence that would be admissible at trial.
So how exactly is this a witch hunt?
Those perverts intended to come and rape those kids, there is no doubt about that. Are you trying to say the rapists have more rights than the rights of the kids who where going to be molested?
The only thing greater than success is spectacular failure!
You really think that "the rapists" are not hired actors? I honestly believe that those deputising stories are just a way to get additional publicity and are just a way to justify aforementioned hunt (not by the actors in the show - by viewers).
Not to mention that even real rapists do not have more rights than the victims and have to be persecuted, but still have a basic right to not make a show out of it. Even scum have rights.
And I don't blame you for thinking I try to side with the sick fucks. It's another cognitive bias.
If you want to believe they are actors just making up some bullshit for TV, that's your call. However the results speak for themselves, over 300 people showed up across all the investigations, the majority were arrested, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to time in jail.
I would say that the moment they actually visited the house with the intention of meeting a child for sex, is the exact moment when a crime was committed, and at that point they are in effect giving up their rights to freedom / anonymity.
If no crime had been committed then I would actually agree with you that they should be entitled to privacy. But not once they have crossed the line. Then it is more important to serve the public good, and alert the community to the identity of a criminal who walks amongst them.
I wonder if your opinion would change if one of these guys had been communicating with your son/daughter. Would you still consider their right to privacy in such high regard? If you saw your kid talking with one of these guys, would you call an end to it, or would you respect their privacy and allow them to continue?
The only thing greater than success is spectacular failure!
mindless has it spot on, to be honest. The moment you knowingly commit (or conspire to commit, in the case of TCaP) a crime is the moment you waive any sensible right to privacy, as you've actively chosen to become a danger to society and as such society itself deserves to know. It's a touchy topic, though, so I can see where you're coming from, morsealworth.
Also, while I can understand your cynicism regarding them being actors, the show does not require release papers to be signed by the people being filmed, which means it's considered news more than it's considered entertainment (it's a thin line, though, I'll agree), which means it's genuine. I also don't see any sane actor putting his face on a national television show that's seriously trying to make you look like an ephebophile.
"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett
If you want to believe they are actors just making up some bullshit for TV, that's your call. However the results speak for themselves, over 300 people showed up across all the investigations, the majority were arrested, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to time in jail.
I would say that the moment they actually visited the house with the intention of meeting a child for sex, is the exact moment when a crime was committed, and at that point they are in effect giving up their rights to freedom / anonymity.
If no crime had been committed then I would actually agree with you that they should be entitled to privacy. But not once they have crossed the line. Then it is more important to serve the public good, and alert the community to the identity of a criminal who walks amongst them.
I wonder if your opinion would change if one of these guys had been communicating with your son/daughter. Would you still consider their right to privacy in such high regard? If you saw your kid talking with one of these guys, would you call an end to it, or would you respect their privacy and allow them to continue?
1. Right for freedom - yes. To be exact, the right for freedom protects from unlawful persecution or other limits of personal freedom so it doesn't protect them in the first place. 2. Right for anonymity? Not so much. Mainly because if those people are what you describe, they must need enforceable medical assistance, not be bullied by the whole community - that would only make it worse. 3. Your third point is wrong in so many places I can't even find a place to stick in my comment. Starting from "alert the community" which simply means aforementioned bullying (yes, it always becomes such) to simply ridiculous notion that it might serve the community at all. 4. My opinion wouldundoubtedlysway, but that would not lower the validity of my point. It wouldlower my own reliability instead.
Lord Ba'al: One of the presents, I spent hours wrapping. It's a bit stupid really. A NSFW giftwrapping. It's a 15 inch marble rolling pin, and two coconuts. You use your imagination, you get the idea.
Dec 14, 2023 22:48:30 GMT
Lord Ba'al: As usual, I've spent more money than I should have. I will never learn.
Dec 14, 2023 22:50:10 GMT
Lord Ba'al: So which family members will you be visiting?
Dec 14, 2023 22:50:42 GMT
Griffork: Woo, got a bunch last Saturday as a friend wanted to catch up in the city and window shop ~ hooray for friends dragging me out of my introvertedness
Dec 17, 2023 23:23:20 GMT
Griffork: Lol nice on the wrapping - I used to fancy wrapping a lot years ago.
Dec 17, 2023 23:24:17 GMT
Griffork: Only immediate family members, by partner's family and my family on separate days. Also boardgames on Christmas Eve.
Dec 17, 2023 23:24:55 GMT
Griffork: How about you? Are you also celebrating with family other than your parents?
Dec 17, 2023 23:25:30 GMT
Lord Ba'al: No, it will just be my wife, my stepdaughter, my parents, and me.
Dec 18, 2023 22:25:27 GMT
Lord Ba'al: My wife's family is all in the States, and kinda out of contact unfortunately.
Dec 18, 2023 22:26:04 GMT
Lord Ba'al: But we'll make it a good Christmas for sure.
Dec 18, 2023 22:26:39 GMT
Lord Ba'al: Oh, and there's the three cats and two dogs of course.
Dec 18, 2023 22:26:50 GMT
Lord Ba'al: I wish you happy holidays Griffork.
Dec 18, 2023 22:27:10 GMT
Spiderweb: Godus has finally been removed from steam (albeit by 22cans).
Dec 23, 2023 20:36:39 GMT