New TCAP/HvP thread

I always knew Libertarians were sick paedo fucks.

>libertarian party

why does a show that was made to freak out people ended up being a comedy relief?

>it's not a crime they didn't fuck the kid!
>would have fucked the kid had it not been a setup

At least he brought snapple

Anything short of swinging a knife and missing/shooting and missing is not attempted murder though, nor should it be. If you show up to kill someone and your victim isn't there, then that doesn't constitute attempted murder. No crime has been committed. Equally if you show up and it turns out your victim doesn't exist, no crime has been committed.

Pretty great collection. Whoever this joseph guy is is pretty based.

Where did you go to law school?

Cred Forums

In the United States, attempted murder is an inchoate crime. A conviction for attempted murder requires a demonstration of an intent to murder, meaning that the perpetrator either tried to murder and failed (e.g. attempted to shoot the victim and missed or shot the victim and the victim survived) or took a substantial step towards committing a murder (e.g. purchasing a gun or other deadly weapon and writing about their intent to kill).

I'm talking as if our society were sensible and reasonable. I studied something useful rather than become a parasitic Jew lawyer on the husk of our withered exterior.

Post hansen golden hits
youtube.com/watch?v=FZK7Zx7s0Vg

>Honey can you take out the trash please?
>NO MOM, I'm defending fictional victims of imaginary crimes on the Internet!
>HAIL PRECOG, I LOVE BIG BROTHER!
>O..ok honey I'll leave your dinner outside the door...

>a society that doesn't try to contain the elements who are fine with killing and having sex with kids
>sensible
>reasonable

Society benefits from keeping these elements contained. That's why non-corrupt laws are created in the first place.

>Honey can you take out the trash please?
>NO MOM, I'm defending pedophile attempted child molesters on the internet!

>Big Brother has deemed you to be an antisocial element due to your ungood thoughts! You will be prosecuted! You will be contained for the greater good!

SOMETHING

>that projection

user, you're the only one trying to defend what you think are victims. The rest of us are bashing the perpetrators.

TO

You will prosecute nothing Tau and DIE

>attempted child molesters

Apart from the fact that the child was completely fictional. If these people are child molesters then Agatha Christie is the world's most prolific serial killer.

THEY LET HIM GO THE FIRST TIME?

When you try to act on them they stop being thoughts, retard.

STOP THIEF!

>killing and having sex with kids
who's talking about killing? and these guys want to have sex with teenagers. most guys want to have sex with teenagers. including the teenagers. stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

he should make a cytube channel with that shit. they dropped google drive but there's a script that allows it now

they didn't coordinate with police in early episodes

Don't post that sick shit here. Fuckers like this should be in prison. That's somebody's imaginary car we're talking about, it's no fucking joke. Imagine waking up one morning and BOOM your imaginary auto isn't where you left it the night before. It's everyone's worst nightmare - well, maybe after having your fictional daughter be mind-molested, or your fictional wife fictionally murdered. Thank God the police are there to protect us from this epidemic of theoretical crime.

>who's talking about killing?

Follow the conversation instead of butting in half-way through, champ. Attempted murder is a thing because it benefits society to keep people who try to murder other people contained. Attempting to have sex with a kid holds the very same benefit.

Could you please stop using words like rape and murder it's problematic.

LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. FUCKING DEGENERATES. WHEN WILL THIS END?

but attempted murder of a real person, or an imaginary one? there is a difference.

Pedos BTFO again!!!

This is actually seriously triggering. We need some thought police in here right now. My dad died in an imaginary car-jacking. Well, it was true in my mind, and the fact that it didn't happen doesn't make it any less real.

No there isn't. If you think you're showing up at a house to kill someone, it shouldn't matter if the person is a corporeal form that you can kill. Because you already believe that said person exists, and you're ready to kill them. Which means that next time you might show up at a house where there is a real person, and kill them.

Society benefits from making sure you can't do that. Letting you go because it wasn't a real person this time would be fucking retarded.

oh, i'm not actually going on the merry-go-round. but thank you.

I have occasionally thought about stealing stuff from shops. I have never committed a crime in my life, but in my weaker moments I've contemplated just stuffing something under my jacket and walking out (but I never actually went through with it). Should I be locked up? If the police possessed a mind reading device, would it be ethical to lock me up?

I wonder how 250-300 people from this show were able to be convicted of a crime that was never committed

found the pedo

>LEAVE THE LADY BE

This is starting to remind me of Anita, Zoe, and her SJW horde claiming to be raped by video games

>my character was raped in GTA waaaaaa

No, that would be an actual thoughtcrime. It WOULDN'T be a thoughtcrime if you made up plans to steal something, and then drove a couple of hours out of your way to enact the plan. Just because your giant diamond turned out to be a glass paperweight doesn't mean society should just be fine with your actions.

Because your country, like mine, has been gradually transformed into an Orwellian shithole where dumbass stooges actually defend thoughtcrime on the Internet because they're afraid of being called pedos. The law courts have been subverted and no longer concern themselves with justice, but merely providing the illusion of justice. It's the same reason the courts are stuffed with victimless criminals like low level drug users and millions of revenue-generating traffic violations.

So the definition of thoughtcrime rests essentially on the detail of the thought? A very brief thought = OK. A very detailed and well-thought out idea = shower rape. Do you even realise the inherent absurdity of what you're saying?

It isn't thoughtcrime. They don't go after the guys who just talk to the girls with no real intent. They arrest the guys who show up with a specific intent to perform a specific action. It's not that they had the idea, but that they had a specific enough intent that they explicitly sought out sex from a minor online, then showed up at her house to follow through on the intent.
I really hope you were baiting though.

>You're free to leave at any time, but before you do there's something you need to know.
>I'm an amorphous vampire entity wearing Chris Hansen's skin, and we're doing a special on Youtube because NBC fired me a long time ago.

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

>we locked up the CSI Miami writers
Good

It's not the detail of the though, it's the act of taking steps to put your plan into action, you thick skulled bastard

They had a very detailed thought about committing an imaginary crime against a fictional entity. If you think this is a good reason to put someone in jail then you are either retarded, insane or evil. Right now this attitude may be directed against pedos, who I feel little sympathy for to be honest. But it could, and very likely will, be turned against you and me for increasingly arbitrary and minor transgressions.

>it's the act of taking steps to put your plan into action

But in my example of being in the shop, I HAD arguably taken steps to put my plan into action. I had very detailed thoughts about the theft, and I had gone INTO the shop perhaps with the intention of committing the theft (or maybe I didn't, who can prove otherwise?). I lingered around the electronics department. I noted the security cameras and security guards. I plotted my route of escape. But eventually, did I do it? No, it was just a crazy passing thought and I walked out. Should I then be arrested?

this is wrong. There is always a victim: the state.

The state has no rights. - t. Bastiat

CSI Miami is thebomb.com

actually, if you attempt to steal a car, that is punishable.
What part of "attempted crime" do you not understand

>Write threatening letters to my neighbor Jon, saying I want to shoot him in the head
>Pull up to his house with a gun
>Bring the gun to his front door
>Get arrested
>WHAT THE FUCK? THOUGHTCRIME!! I DID NOTHING WRONG

Did you seriously just attempt to defend the theft of an IMAGINARY car?

Walking into a store is not sufficient evidence that you intended to steal something. If you were caught in a store with some kind of theif's tools and text messages on your phone saying "yo im bout to go rob dis store my nigga" then you would be arrested

Does it come on tomorrow or sometime later this week? I need to find a schedule for when hvp is on.

No, it literally isn't in any way at all. You're just a fucking moron.

>shoot at a person
>miss
>LOL DIDN'T ACTUALLY KILL HIM HELP GARY JOHNSON HELP ME THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR GENIUS

Or, in this case:

>stalk dating apps looking for children to rape
>randomly acquire a police decoy instead of the child i would've raped had the police not intervened
>LOL DIDN'T ACTUALLY RAPE HER HELP GARY JOHNSON HELP ME THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR GENIUS

the state, meaning the community at large? Have you ever wondered why criminal cases are labeled as People vs. Defendant?

Precrime, bitch.

>show up at fancy garage with tools to steal a Lamborghini, having left ample evidence that you're going to steal the car because you told your mates about your plans
>there is no Lamborghini inside
>police should just let you go because it's only a "thought crime", seeing as the car didn't exist

Are you seriously this retarded?

If you thought that the car was imaginary and you attempted to steal it, there is no crime. If you thought that the car was real but actually was just imaginary, there was attempted crime. Learn the difference between Factual Impossibility and Legal Impossibility.

who makes these charts?

You have made a false equivalency. The difference between the cases:

Case 1: The gun and the intended victim are real, the shot was real.
Case 2: There is no victim

A more appropriate comparison would be between somebody writing a detailed plan to kill Captain Jack Sparrow, then pinning a poster of him in their backyard and shooting him. Fictional plan, fictional victim = fictional crime.

>if the criminal thought about the crime then it's a thought crime.
Christ you're retarded.

So you would actually, seriously arrest this guy: if he thought the car was real? Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of us?

But user "thought" is in the word!! It's literally thought crime!!!

Plz I don't wanna watch day time tv shit

Yes, that was an attempted commission of a crime. Penal laws are both punitive and preventive; Arresting is preventive as it would be locking up someone who has the propensity to steal cars. it sounds silly for the uninitiated but not for us who truly embrace legalese

No, I haven't. You're just a fucking literal retard. I'll demonstrate again, without firing the gun, and you'll still be too fucking stupid to understand.

>piss and moan about ex-wife to roommate for weeks
>tell him i'm going to go kill that bitch
>load and holster gun
>leave house
>he calls police
>they intercept five doors down from ex-wife's
>LOL NO ONE DIED DINDU NUFFIN DIDDIN EVEN FIRE GUN THOUGHT CRIME THOUGHT CRIME HELP SOUTH PARK HELP THE CONSTITUTION

No victim = no crime

Everything else is Jewish bullshit cooked up by lawyers to justify rent-seeking behaviour.

Reminder that a few years back the Libertarian Party wanted to put the legalization of child prostitution on their platform.
>The government can't tell children what to do with their body.
When the media took notice they backtracked.

He used to be Chris Handsome. Now his fave looks like meat curtains and I can't take him seriously.

>cooked up by lawyers
>implying lawyers make laws
you are only """""""""""""""trolling"""""""""""""" r-right?

Which extended interview is most based?

lolwat? Did they just ignore regular prostitution and skip right to child prostitution?

Do you ever ask yourself how our society got to the point where people on the Internet are defending arresting someone who pretended to steal an imaginary car for free. Just how far do these stooges have the law-enforcement boot up their own rectums?

I laughed out loud. Thanks.

Right, now look up how many Congressmen are or were practising lawyers. Now look up how many Presidents are or were practising lawyers. We're not a society of laws but a society of lawyers and it's strangling our nation.

>There's not really a little girl so you can't take me to jail!
This actually happened on the show
youtube.com/watch?v=dtTpn4ouS5M

Most legislators, lobbyists, and 100% of judges have a background in law

what is the screenname you use for talking about watching football with little girls in roleplaying chatrooms

>teenagers should have sex with greasy neckbeards

>that chatlog

youtube.com/watch?v=Wu_IKYlO6e8

What a great citizen

@74487459
Epic straw man brah.

The same one you use to unironically talk about locking up imaginary car thieves on a Vietnamese clay-sculpting emporium.

>Can I rape you anally?
Does he not understand how rape works?

yes but they do not make laws in their capacity as lawyers.

>Your honor, I obviously did nothing wrong, but you can't see that because you're a dirty fucking Jew.
Good luck with that.

>Cred Forumstards are pedos

Such a surprise!

>We're not a society of laws but a society of lawyers and it's strangling our nation.
>I can't fuck tight underaged pussy
>nation is being strangled
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Can I rape you anally?

I'd kill for Disney to make a Punisher show/movie adapting this, complete with "Hey boo" comments from Frank.

>implying you can rape the willing

>Don't mind me just pirating this car

you can if they're under 18.

Prostitution as a whole, but including children and child porn. As long as child porn was "consensual" (yeah, I know), it was to be legal.

>having the tomboy women actors pretend to be boys
why not just hire a male actor

depending on the age of consent of the state he's planning to anally rape me, some states have 16

So crimes should never be prevented?

>I CAN'T RAPE CHILDREN BECAUSE OF JEWS
Well, ok.

They don't want to/can't use underage actors. Males get a deeper voice when going through puberty, making the ruse that much harder.

They do that, too

The Iraq veteran that got caught by Hansen is also a Trump supporter.

Source pls.

Police can prevent crime by dissuasion. If they left their offices to walk the street or patrol more often then they would prevent a hell of a lot more crime. But I doubt they're really interested in that any more because there are lots of petty, revenue-generating victimless criminals to prosecute like those evil men going 2mph over the speed limit that need to be caught. Now don't forget to write lots of tickets and arrest lots of weed smokers officer. Those private prisons aren't going to fill themselves!

what do they do with all the stuff pedros bring?

Hanson has a mean stash of condoms and snacks.

I imagine they use it as evidence and destroy it.

>victimless criminals

I actually agree with you. For just about any other crime this whole model falls apart pretty fast. Like enticing people to steal imaginary cars or stereos, or deal fake drugs. But you're fighting a losing battle as most people will overlook it because lolpedos.

>speeding down a road
>narrowly avoid a crash
>get pulled over
>WHAT THE FUCK I DINDU NUFFIN I DIDN'T HIT THEM OR ANYTHING

>Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
But I guess none of these matters because "Jews"

>get called out on misunderstanding thought crimes
>"g-guys I hate Jews, will you agree with me now?"

>GETDOWNGETDOWNONTHEGROUNDGETTHEFUCKDOWN
>they just stand there and wait to be tackled
for what purpose

>speeding down fictional road
>narrowly avoid imaginary crash
>get theoretically pulled over
>twelve years in federal prison for conspiracy to cause a vehicular thought-incident, attempted theoretical homicide and threatening the feelings of an nonreal state officer

OH SAY CAN YOU SEE

twitter.com/stevebuck6985

Why don't these guys just order a pizza and see if Chris fucking Hansen answers the door from a block down

Reckless Driving.

Acting on the possibility of them having a concealed weapon.

That's how he got fat. That was his plan since the beginning.

Why do they plead guilty automatically? Emotions?

hansen hides in the house and sends the 40 year old "13 year old girl" out to answer.

There's probably a lot more they're not showing.

Hansen has final cut, after all. Probably even edits himself to be a lot wittier/creative than he's actually being.

I meant why do the pedos just stand there when they see police running full speed at them and demanded they get on the ground?

i think most people would be fucked if our minds could be read. great movie. i just recently watched it back to back with a scanner darkly.

Why does he tell them you are free to go if the cops are waiting for the pedos?

Plea deal usually. No jailtime but put on the list that will literally ruin your life forever

This is the bottom of the pedo barrel. These guy's ain't bright.

>enticing people to steal imaginary cars
>bait cars are imaginary
>it's enticement in any way, shape, or form

You're almost as stupid as that other dumb faggot.

>be me
>go out looking for a car to steal
>be a dumb nigger and steal a bait car
>LOL I WAS ENTICED BY THIS IMAGINARY CAR
>HELP GARY JOHNSON HELP
>PRIVATE PRISONS RENT SEEKING
>NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ENTRAPMENT OR ECONOMICS EXCEPT ME

Well, I'm not a legal expert by any measure, but they keep getting these long-ass sentences and I'm quite sure that they could get much less significant sentences if they waited for their lawyer.

>40 year old "13 year old girl"
What is this meme supposed to prove?

why don't they get down or why do the police basically bust a nut taking them down?

Incredulity on the part of the suspect. The police literally are having multiple orgasms.

I believe it's called shock.

how amazing it is their busted ass decoy convinces anyone shes under the age of 20, much less 13.

A bait car is real though. It's a real physical car that they're stealing. If it were exactly like TCAP then the car would have to be literally fictional - i.e. it didn't exist.

>You are so...EFFING hot bro.

I feel sorry for Hansen sometimes, he has the recite some unbelievable shit.

which is the episode where the guy brings his fucking kid to his date?

why don't they get down
I can understand if it's dark out but a lot of times during the day it shows the suspect standing there watching the police run up to them

They're basically signing the worst plea deal possible because hansen acts like they're completely screwed and they have no choice.

Basically never sign anything a non-lawyer pushes at you.

>>HELP GARY JOHNSON HELP
lol

The decoys aren't imaginary.

>A bait car is real though.
No it's not. It's not a real person's car for you to steal.

Why do you have so much trouble with the concepts of real, imaginary, and potential victims?

A bait car is a real car. Indistinguishable from a real car. Attempted/planned murder has a real intended/potential victim.

Then perverted justice and copycats are manufacturing a completely imaginary victim and arresting people based upon virtual crimes commuted against that completely imaginary victim.

they don't even show the funniest part of the segment in this clip. the first thing this mf does when he walks into the kitchen is sets down the beer, and take all his clothes off. there is absolutely no question as to what his intent was.

>commuted
hah

Are you saying it would only be legit if the bait was an actual minor?
Because that's fucking retarded.

>there is absolutely no question as to what his intent was.

Is getting naked in a house in which you were invited a crime?

Neither are they minors though. They're actors in imaginary thoughtcrime theater. It would be like Bait Car using an inflatable auto and then prosecuting the thieves for GTA. Everyone including the judge would laugh them out of court. But because here it's lolpedos then we just let it slide. One day the police will come for a lot of 'fringe' people on Cred Forums on bogus charges and you'll wish you stood up to this thoughtcrime bullshit while you could. Who knows? Discussing terrorism online in a political forum? That's tantamount to terrorism.

...

Yes, I'm saying solicitation of a minor should only be an actual crime if there is an actual victim.

But the statute was written before people could imagine such circumstances as real people addressing imaginary people and not being able to tell they're imaginary.

>commuted
Idiot
but yeah, absolutely ignore the code and case law which defines entrapment.

>no victim no crime
Ah yes, the ignorant.

>specifically don't talk about entrapment

>ITS NOT ENTRAPMENT I WIN

... are you touched in the head?

>tfw you just came to get something to eat

The obvious difference is that they believe the child is real. The legal reasoning is that whether the outcome is real or fake, they had the intent to perform the real crime. The crime isn't the thought of causing harm but the intent to cause harm.

Yes, that is strictly what I am saying.

There is no way to argue there is an actual victim in these "solicitation of a minor" sting operations. The decoy in no way passes for 13 and is quite distinguishable from a 13 year old.

>imaginary victims
user, you are touching on the topic of entrapment.

What is the point of prosecuting a victimless crime? Who benefits? What is the point? Does it protect society? Who can say, there was only the POSSIBILITY of the crime, not a crime itself.

>huh huh you guys are gonna get it one day, just you wait
The Cred Forumsestinian, pushed to his last line of defense.

There is nothing to be gained from educating you. I will just tell you that you are wrong. No victim=no crime is retarded, and is actually one of the first topics in introduction to criminal law.

the wisdom of the law is up to those who make it. As it stands, there exist the concept of "attempted/frustrated" and "consummated" crimes. I don't make the law, I just apply them. If you trigger the requirements, you do the time

No, I'm really not. Its okay, its a common topic in these threads, I understand.

The statute these stings are specifically exploiting, solicitation of a minor, the way they're exploiting the loophole the internet blew into it, does mean it is not strictly entrapment. Because its a crime where thinking you are doing x is sufficient to meet the legal requirements of the crime. Whether or not a victim even exists. Thus, it is a thought crime.

Basically if you think you're soliciting dora the explorer for sex, and considering dora the explorer stopped running after 15 years, shes legally a minor, you're guilty of the crime and can be prosecuted.

Yeah, you're retarded. Case closed.

>No victim=no crime is retarded

yes, and? Can you argue there is a victim in these stings? No, you can't. There isn't even a potential victim.

>One day the police will come for a lot of 'fringe' people on Cred Forums
You should see a doctor. Your mental condition is gonna get worse with age.

Your lack of counter argument has been noted.

And as I have argued, it's wrong. It's morally wrong and it's a reflection of our hollow, corrupted society. I'm not arguing it isn't true. I'm not arguing that it's entrapment (it's not). I'm just saying it's bad. It's thought crime and it's morally, philosophically bankrupt. Nobody has made a successful moral argument in defence of this thought crime in this thread, except on the flimsy grounds of 'protecting society'. They have only successfully argued that it is, in fact, currently legally the case (which was never disputed).

Negro, the fact these virtual crimes against imagined victims are standing up in court means literal thought crimes are literally being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as if they were real crimes against real kids.

facepalm.jpg

>I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA!

I am merely trying to explain to you, a layman, on how the law werks. You are entitled to an opinion on how it is "wrong," "how it should be," and of course, "the Jews"
I'm just saying that won't hold, and are arguing from ignorance.
>statute
>here are the elements
>you do these, you've violated it
Attempted crimes do not need to have an actual victim who is injured.
Noted. That is your opinion, however ill-founded it may be it is your right to have one.

>Thus, it is a thought crime.
They went to the house. They didn't just think about it.
>the bait wasn't actual jailbait
Tell that to the judge.

This is like the retards who believe the cops are forced to tell the truth in a drug sting.

You've already explained you're a paranoid antisemite. I don't know what could make you see reason.

Acting out a fake crime against nobody is still in the same realm as thinking about a fake crime. We call it thought crime, but we actually mean 'non-crime'.

You should be cremated before you actually die.

>Attempted crimes do not need to have an actual victim

... yea, yes they do. You can't attempt to murder a sock. There needs to be an actual person who is the target of your attempt at murder.

But we're not talking about ATTEMPT to solicit a minor here. We're talking about solicitation of a minor.

It ceased being a thought crime when they left their house.

Dude, you keep getting confused.

Going to the house is not the crime. The crime was offering to fuck the decoy online. Solicitation of a minor. Getting the perpetrator to the house is only for the sake of creating an airtight link between the perpetrator and the chat log.

where can I watch the episode + the first one?

It's still in the boundaries of crime theater. No victim, no harm, no rights infringed. But apparently it's for the greater good that this fake crime be punished.

No, you are completely wrong. These stings don't operate on any crime other than solicitation of a minor.

youtube.com/watch?v=QjOsHmToIOE
youtube.com/watch?v=tbOfDjCohEI
youtube.com/watch?v=-MSjYD-MCM4
youtube.com/watch?v=VOBgE10sEQE

I don't know about you, but the only teenagers I want to have sex with are 18 and 19, maybe a couple of 17 year olds.
These kids are 13 or 14.

And arresting someone for soliciting an imaginary minor is STILL just as stupid as arresting somebody for trying to hotwire an imaginary car. Completely pointless.

There are two impossibility defenses: Factual and Legal Impossibility. The latter works, the former does not.
Let's take your example of a sock. Let's put that sock on the sofa.
If (You) believed that that sock was indeed a sock, and is on the sofa, and you fired upon the sofa with the intent to destroy the sock, there was no crime committed.
If (You) believed that that sock was a person, and is on the sofa, and you fired upon the sofa with intent to destroy that person (but was actually a sock) you have committed attempted murder.
It is based on the subjective knowledge of (You), that's why "but she's not really a minor" is never a defense in these things.

>We call it
No, you. Just you.

How is it I can tell you have never studied law, philosophy, or logic?

Thus, virtual crime against imaginary victim literally being prosecuted.

But lets get all pedantic about the definition of thought crime.

I know. Just trying to keep the normies from getting too distracted.

The Iraq vet is a Trump fan.

>what's the point of locking up pederasts for simply attempting to rape children
>do children benefit
>is there a point to prosecuting criminals
>does prosecuting sex offenders protect society
>if a criminal attempting to commit a crime does not succeed in committing the crime he shouldn't be punished
Please die.

see
but please disregard it because the law was made by "Jewish Lawyers"

>How is it I can tell you have never studied law, philosophy, or logic?

Fucking hell you are literally defending the prosecution of thought crime as actual crime.

What if I believed I would destroy the sock... WITH MY MIND?

>its this faggot from last thread again

You have a lot of time on your hands in between fapping to children and defending pedophiles.

>During drug sting
>Hey, are you a cop? You have to tell me because I wouldn't sell drugs to a cop. So if you lie then I'm gonna commit a fictional crime. A thought crime really.
>Uh........ no, I'm not a cop.

I got here late from the last thread. Did someone say jews or are you just trying to make people arguing against the statute in question are absurd?

On the contrary. You have been repeatedly disproved. You're both too stupid and too obstinate to grasp this. You're the judge, jury, sheriff, commissioner, and sole occupant of Dunning-Kruger County, and you probably won't even grasp that.

first, you do not know what a "thought crime" is
second, read the post again, or google "impossibility" defense and educate yourself for once. I literally could not simplify it further.
>What if I believed I would destroy the sock... WITH MY MIND?
the example was very clear

Are any of these remaining fake criminals likely to get in Hansen's face and ramble about imaginary cars?

>the thoughtcrime user
>the dora the explora example user

We can spot your autism from a mile away now, autist. This is the third thread youve bothered to stumble in

>Did someone say jews
See the last thead. They're attacking the wisdom of the law, not it's validity (because seriously I don't expect them to know how to)

see snakes starting to eat itself here.

>I must protest, your honor. I know a Jew like you might not understand, but I am a pederast, not a pedophile!

Oh, gotcha, you just started saying jew jew jew to make your opposition seem stupid.

Understood. Good tactic. It seems to have really shut down your opposition.

It's starting to be more likely now.

YOU'RE the one who's making a big stink about " thought crimes". Nobody else cares. They're just trying to educate you while you're rabbling about ethics.

>During drug sting
>Sell the cop oregano
>Haha you're under arrest because that COULD have been weed
>See US Statute 748 F.133421242345691/698 and the case of Steinberg v. Eisenstein which says that I am always right!
>Thank God I got here in time to prevent this imaginary crime!
>Off to private prison with you to slave away for mister Shekelbergstein!
>Another sicko off our streets, now let's get back to cooking up more traffic tickets

When did the bootlickers become a literal parody of themselves?

The pedo blamed the Jews first.

I apologize, it was ITT

>forming your opinions around the Libertarian platform
>thinking anything they say is in our reality or makes any sense

Wew, I sure do love the concept of no public libraries and unregulating businesses to the point of letting them discriminate people out of participating in the economy.

Really makes you think

Gotta bring back that gold standard back, then all our problems will be solved!

Man, US law is kind of fucked 2bh. Good to be a yuropoor.

>They're just trying to educate you

Is that why they keep saying the same thing over and over while making no attempt to argue for the soundness of the statute in question?

I was serious about the medical condition. Have you started losing friends?

I'll take US law over shariah law.

He seems to be quite successfully mocking you.

I was doing you the favor of taking you seriously, despite your lack of sound, reasoned arguments.

a lawyer's job is not to argue the "soundness" of a statute. It's not even the job of the judge to do that. Their job is to apply it. Our opinion of the "soundness" of a law is irrelevant.
"Soundness"=/=validity, to preempt you

This isn't traffic court Chaim. It's a fucking Tibetan basket weaving agora I can argue all I want about morality.

That isn't a crime. The only drug crime which carries intent is possession of a large enough volume the intent to sell/distribute is implied.

Your basic problem is that you're really, really, really fucking stupid, to the point where you imagine the state conducts prosecutions which they never, ever have. No one has ever been prosecuted or even arrested for buying or selling oregano while intending to buy or sell narcotics. Ever.

So did they ever arrest this guy?

it's unclear after watching the episode

(((Your))) morality. Which you are trying to push to everyone's face. You're like some kind of SJW or something?

They keep repeating themselves because you keep failing to fucking understand how these laws work... Dont like them? Ask to have them changed you uninitiated neetsack. Write your congressman

>Your basic problem is that you're really, really, really fucking stupid
Woah, watch out, we triggered the reddit gold user

>le reddit meme

Its bad enough you defend pedos and have no concept of law with your only experience in life being the film Minority Report and Gary Johnson's sex tapes

Nope, attempting to sell sham controlled substances is it's own branch of crime.

Yes, there are literally criminal statutes for attempting to defraud drug addicts. That's how insane the law is.

The point I'm harping upon is how there are no divisions of solicitation of a minor. A virtual crime against an imagined victim caries the same penalty as walking up to a real, clearly underage girl in walmart and asking to see if your cock can fit in her vagina.

Yeah they most certainly have

>You're like some kind of SJW or something?
Everyone who tries to push their morality is an SJW now. I guess that makes humanists SJWs. I'm cool with that.

Next time someone starts bitching about 'muh huemin rites' I'll just tell them to stop being such an SJW.

ah fuck, a TCaP thread has breached into moral relativism.

shit == real

That was literally my first post ITT you silly cuckshed dweller.

>there are no divisions of solicitation of a minor

Yes there are, dumbfuck. What do you think "degrees" mean? Do you think every crime in the US is a felony? Is J walking a felony in your la la land?

That's preposterous! I'll have you know I'm a paralegal and according to skarenian v internet, all people who post negative things at me are the same person!

>human rights
You mean defendant's rights. These laws will NOT stand if they violate any of these rights in the Federal Constitution (that are applicable to states, assuming this does not fall within Federal Jurisdiction) or in the constitution of their respective states.

>hes pretending there are multiple degrees of "SOLICITATION OF A MINOR" now

sweet jesus

I wasn't talking about Law m8

I had never watched an episode before tonight but I love this show

The way Chris reads the chatlogs with his deadpan tone makes them hilarious

There are levels of solicitation and levels of endangerment and misconduct with a child...yes. Are you a tard?

Even if there are, there aren't enough.

For virtual crimes against imagined victims aren't on the same level as jaywalking.

then you are talking about feelings disguised as a discussion of ((((morals)))) good evening

Stop with your autistic "imagined" or "virtual" crime buzzwords. Its the epitome of cringe. These arent thought crimes either dumb faggot

>imagined victim
You really are incapable of learning. Are you a manlet?

There are levels of solicitation, yes.

There is only one level of solicitation of a minor and these stings only ever go for solicitation of a minor.

Though the recent season has scaled up a bit and how has guys signing confessions of imagined crimes against non-existent people.

The police in Minority Report did do the right thing. The fact that the program stopped homicides proved it good. Who defends a system that stops criminals and saves the lives of innocent people?

I'm incapable of backing down without a reasoned argument.

For instance, there has yet to be presented, a good argument as to why the "victim" in these stings isn't entirely imaginary.

These pedos dont just commit solicitation though. You are too autistic to even grasp that...

This has got to be my favorite of his readings

>The fact that the program stopped homicides proved it good.

The fact it then put those people into lifetime imprisonment for crimes that had been removed from existence before they happened was the reason it was flawed.

>I'm incapable of backing down without a reasoned argument.
Legit one of the most autistic things I've ever seen on here, and I actually agree with you on your general point.

Its because your premise is already faulty and full of bullshit, that the resr of your "arguments" arent valid and coherent. Your premise is bad, the argument is weak becauae of that

You have no actual grasp of how these laws work

>These pedos dont just commit solicitation though

Irrelevant. Solicitation of a minor is all the stings can go for.

>imagined crimes
>imagined victim
>reasoned
Subjective. No matter how "reasoned" these arguments are presented to you, you will not accept them unless they align with your position. You are either incapable of learning, or are incapable of accepting when you are beat. So you're either a mentally challenged person or a very stubborn one.
Or both

You agree with him on his "dur its a thought crime" autism?

Text based communications will make you autistic.

All that can exist in text based communications are ideas. Thus, no reason to consider anything else.

How can one person be this retarded?

Your lack of counter arguments has been noted.

Feel free to elaborate.

Just because they trump it up a bit in post, making seem like they're catching serial rapists and preventing the sexual abuse of ALL CHILDREN, doesn't mean the stings aren't built entirely and exclusively around solicitation of a minor.

>dur u grees wit hem on "This is clearly an example of a precursor to thought crime legislation" autisms????

>this is a precursor to thought crime legislation

If you believe this statement, you are even more of a dumb autist I thought. Or just a samefag pretending tocbr two different anons.

Get out of here with your tin foil horseshit, you have a containment board for that faggot

So how is this not a literal example of a virtual crime against an imagined entity that is only classified as criminal because of the beliefs of the perpetrator?

And, yea, that was mostly an in jest inversion of the whole "addin dur to dere posts maeks tehm teh dumbs."

These threads always devolve into one triggered pedophile and retards goading into making more a fool of himself

>Actually defending people with PROOVEN INTENT to molest children

And unless you've missed the last 2000~ of western law INTENT is all that is required to prove guilt

Fucking retarded faggot

Can't wait to see you get caught with CP on your hard drive and try to mumble at the cops to get out of it

>proven intent
>children
[citation needed]

Well yea, when all opposition degenerates into "US TEH DUMS" what is left but to be silly?

Also intent still requires a real victim.

>10 pedos
>10 white men
I am shocked I tell you, shocked

Which one should I watch? Settling in for a comfy evening, and I want to avoid anything with that obnoxious fat decoy or the lame ginger guy decoy.

>three threads and a literal dozen anons still cant get through to this dumb faggot why its not a thought crime and why his entire premise is bullshit

We have literally repeated the same thing over and over to you

>Hello individual I am fully conviced is a child I intend to have sex with you.

>What? I never intended to have sex with a child!

Are you pretending to be retarded? Intending to commit a crime is a crime, I can't just tell someone I'm going to kill them, show up at their hosue with an axe and go

BUT OFFICER IT"S JUST A PRANK BRO I'M JUST PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED

Or the modern legal system wouldn't work,

you're either b8ing or retards

And it hasn't worked and now you're just trying to shame a guy, over the internet, for ignoring repetition.

I mean shit, you know where you are, right?

How could 13 year old pussy be so good that you risk this shit for it.

They got a couple black dudes back in the day

So in your hypothetical, an imaginary person is committing an imaginary crime against an imaginary victim.

And that person should be prosecuted?

Do you see these guys? I don't even think they care about the age. They all seem completely dead inside and just waiting for death, then someone young and bright and happy seems interested in intimacy with them and they break traffic laws just on the hope it is real.

>that
>black

nigga please, that guys whiter than I am.

>How could the first decent pussy you've had in literally years be so good that you risk this shit for it.

The problem is that we are repeating the correct and factual response...

You stonewall it with your arrogance. If you arent willing to hear how you are wrong, it doesnt matter. You keep being an autist and you should be shamed for your idiocy

>by a shere accident, you come into contact with a manic pixie dream girl
>she tells you shes 13

do you care?

Nnnnoo, you're delving into hypothetical that involve real victims. Because for some reason no one on the internet can tell the difference between what is real and what is imagined anymore.

No....jesus fuck, you still dont get it. You literally have no idea how intent works

I think it is you who has no idea how intent works.

nah dude, its like multiplying negatives. If an real(1) dude commits(x) an imagined(-1) crime against an imagined(-1) victim, he should be prosecuted(=1) for reals.

So 1*-1*-1=1

But if an imagined dude commits an imagined crime against an imagined victim, then its -1*-1*-1 = -1

what if an imagined dude commits an imagined crime against a real victim?
Should the imaginary dude be arrested?

>we will never have comfy TCAP threads again

So many of these people are married, and it's surprising how many of them are newlyweds.

Obviously.

why not

I bet we will when the next episode comes out

>that lady detective during the confession

i want to be inside you bb

>Guy in the first ep of HvP blames everything on going to Iraq

>is shown how he quite literally doesnt understand law
>doesnt understand the core concepts behind criminal intent or how it works
>"thoughtcrime!"
>"thoughtcrime!"
>"le they no real ppl meme"

You are a genuine autist

>How old is this girl you were chatting to?
>She said she was 13 but didn't look it
youtube.com/watch?v=dpP5FLr0LY8

That girl said she was 16 but I swear to god, I could tell she was 22.

I might not have the popular opinion here, but I hate how they demonize these "pedophiles." There's more and more evidence in scientific literature now on how adults that are attracted to pre-adulthood people are not wilfully acting out of malice, but rather they are biologically hard-wired into it, just like how homosexuals and bisexuals are. It's another sexual orientation.
There are serious ethical implications of accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and until that debate is solved, we have to provide an environment where they can enact their sexual desires in a healthy way, where there are no vulernable parties involved. e.g. stop publicly shaming them, allowing them to go seek counselling/psychotherapy without fear of incrimination. Germans did it with the Dunkelfeld Project, which used mass media campaigns to advertise clinical services for help-seeking, self-identified pedophiles and hebephiles. Their results were that there were more pedophiles identified, and they could be helped psychologically into not engaging in exploitation.

this shows pretty much picks up lame guys for comedy value, there are way more dangerous guys outside.

The problem is that the people on this show and Hanson's previous show aren't simply paedophiles and such, they're child molesters and child rapists.

Paedophiles can control their urges even if they're stuck with them. Child molesters can't.

>the way I entertain myself is online

holy shit it's really Cred Forums in the flesh

chemical castration is always an option

>they're child molesters and child rapists.

>14 year old
>child

my dick is bigger

22 here
i'm still a child

Well sounds like s'all good then because the "good" pedos would never end up on this show, right?

People who need help with this should get it, but ultimately I don't think pedos will ever get to have "normal" life. Sucks, but you have to work torwards whats best for the majority in this case.

Hi, pedo. Yes. 14 is considered by most if not all the states in the US to be a legal child. Not an adult. Does this rustle your jim jams cuck? Cant get a gf that isnt a literal child?

>14
>not a child
explain yourself

>booty busted pedos coming out of the woodwork
Your degeneracy has no place in society, glad to see they're catching the worst elements.

>hurr durr muh thoughtcrime

they aren't being arrested for simply having pedophilic thoughts, they're arrested for chatting to a decoy who they think is a child, explicitly going into detail about what they would do to said child, and going to said child's place with the obvious intent of fucking them, usually while bringing condoms and shit.

I wish they'd have more ballsy decoys who would literally push the whole scenario as hard as possible until the guy wanted to start fucking.

Then if there was any doubt about intent that would seal it.

Just thought-condoms they were going to wrap around imaginary boners

>no public libraries
The only reason people go to the library now is to use the Internet.
>discriminate people out of the economy
literally impossible

>"we all have our fetishes, okay?"
>that soul-piercing stare Hansen gives him
>...
>*cough*

>"What do you think should happen?"
>inhales to speak
>cuts to him being carried away by cops

Gat dayngit, Bobby.

people do some things, man

>it is literally impossible to discriminate people out of participating in the economy

Are you a blatant retard? This shit actually happened, it is the reason we have regulations in the first place. I know a lot of neets dont understand either history or economics, but if you completely deregulated business, you allow for legal and protected discriminatory practices...which has actually happened in American history

Of course, the answer to this (given by Libertarians) is that through meme magic, all corporations and businesses become benelevont on their own accord...

Much better to just have lawa in place beforehand so that you avoid dealing with every criminal act retroactively.

*benevolent

Why dont 5'11 manlets just kill themselves