/hansen/ - HvP & TCAP General

Hansen needs his xanax or he won't make it to the end of the season.

Is there a schedule of when the show comes on? I watch Crime Watch Daily and I caught the first episode but haven't seen a predator on the show since.

new episode every Tuesday

John Dupee, from episode 2, got a dealer busted 3 years ago

thehour.com/norwalk/article/Local-developer-s-son-charged-as-dealer-8269342.php

I can start one up, I'll be away for the evening but I can just queue up some shit

I'm actually heading out in a minute myself, but queue something else, I'll pop in when I get back

Alright, give me a few minutes

That's one fast Hansen.

He's 57, man, he's gotta be fast about it if he wants to catch all the predators in his lifetime.
>captcha: NO CP

Get in here for some TCAP, boys!

watch2gether.com/rooms/tcapandhvp-xvll84vgh1zk30i6
watch2gether.com/rooms/tcapandhvp-xvll84vgh1zk30i6
watch2gether.com/rooms/tcapandhvp-xvll84vgh1zk30i6
watch2gether.com/rooms/tcapandhvp-xvll84vgh1zk30i6

I'm heading out in 30 minutes, but there should be a good amount in the playlist so hopefully it keeps going

...

...

WHat is some essential Hansen-core?

entrapment is bullshit

bump

Post yfw it's not a her

...

>pumblr
>doesn't even bring snacks
>bring foods only for himself
>literally wants to take a shit
Why wasn't this man gased?

*plumber

I like the first spelling better, looks like a plumber from tumblr

I think we should call him pumblr now

why does this guy keep thinking someone is going to go to his stupid google drive folder

What's wrong with Chris Hansen's face.
He doesn't even look the same.

>He doesn't even look the same.

There are people half his age already balding in their 30s or late 20s who will never look the same, he just gains weight and suddenly you say what happened? Please...

>57 years old
>6'4
nigga he looks way better than most guys I share a class in my uni.

Because people keep going to the folder for the episodes, you mong.

What is your favourite Chis opener?

mine is Brian Gosselin's, otherwise known as the YYEEAAAHHHH guy

>decoy asks if he brought protection
>he says YYEAAAHHH
>Chris walks in
>"You're probably not going to need that type of protection tonight"

>*record scratch*

>*freeze frame*

>Yeah, that's me. You're probably wondering how I got myself into this situation

What will next episode's pedo nickname be?

...

When will this terrible show get canceled friendly reminder these men need you're compassion not you're anger and scrutiny Hansen is a bastard for doing shows like this and ruining lives

give me some details senpai

>what night is this?

rekt

Chris Hansen is a hero and a national treasure. Sounds like you already got to meet him though.

...

Fuck that's a good one.

Episode 3 is stuff of legend.

>regular cheetos
>not flamin hot
Jesus christ what a faggot, no wonder Chris went out of his way to say the other criminals were making fun of him.

We know nothing so far besides that he wears a Jurassic Park shirt

>tfw no snapple

JUST

...

%110 entrapment

Huehuahue so he's a snitch and a pedo

Good fucking luck in prison buddy

possible new content

yearbook photos of some of the pedos from the original series

includes the rabbi, the doctor, hambubger, westerbeck (the super short guy who had a rape charge) and a few others

youtube.com/watch?v=kE50RWZDbhg

Hansen really needs to lose some weight, his gut is sticking out of his jacket.

Does Chris come up with those zingers on the spot?

he definitely does, a lot of them are very relevant to something the pedo did/said a few seconds before

but i wouldn't be surprised if he had a few canned ones in case he can't come up with something good on the spot

in one of the raw footage behind the scenes shows he talks about his zingers and how he thinks them up, saying that he was proud of a couple of them

If a female cop dresses like a prostitute and hangs around a back alley, she can arrest anybody who walks up to her and asks for prostitution service. But if that cop walks up to somebody to specifically offer prostitution services and they say yes, it would be entrapment.
It is the same thing here, the fake girls on the show never actually ask the pedophile to come to their house, they always just make innocuous conversation until the guy asks to go to their house.

Future note to self: tell wife to not bring the girls

>Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement.
>Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement.
>Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."

faggots

...

fuck anyone who likes this shit

>Fake cheese flavored snacks and overly sugared beverage

For shame.

>that picture
Now i'm trying to picture Hansen confronting one of the predators while shit faced

Damn, when will they learn?

kys

>talking shit about Snapple

I have another one. Take a small sip of a bud light every time a pedo defends pedos in these threads, try not to get shitfaced too fast.

>For sex, you are NOT coming?

I need a link to that.

so demanding, reminds me of the pajeets that message people one facebook

>Place a giant picture, behind where the suspect usually sits, that they have to blur out.

It makes the shot a mess. Come on, Hansen, you're better than this.
Also what's with the weak dialogue? The original episodes had some of the funniest lines I've ever heard.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THAT GIRL WEARS A BULLETPROOF VEST?

>please respond
As a 27 year old virgin, it really scares me how close to the same level of beta I must be to these people.

In case she gets fucking shot you idiot

what? no way

watching Chris Hansen grill pedos is best described with just two words: the cleanest best pleasure

shot by who?

There has to be at least one girl that is a fucking pedo on this show. Why is it all guys?

So where is the episode with Jurassic Park?

holy fuck

>Papi is talking to the cops
>"Oh yeah by the way I did this with a 15 year old boy."

Why did he think that was a good thing to tell them?

Dennis Pedry

when the chinese food so good you incriminate yourself

>he waived his right to be silent

he's an idiot for whatever he tells them

I wanna say that it's because guys are more vulnerable

kinda like that biological need to fuck.

I would imagine only a really REALLY really desperate girl getting caught on hansen's program.

>smug face
Why was he so comfy on a fucking office with the whole police surrounding you?

women go after kids they know, look at all the female schoolteachers getting busted for fucking their students

i think men are just more likely than women to seek sex in uncharted territory, the thirst is real. naturally this leads to committing sex crimes disproportionally

i think the original series did have a female predator but she only did the chat and some male accomplice went to the decoy house to retrieve the kid

...

#freepapi

>WHAT!?!?
>NO WAY!!!

he's still euphoric over that chinese takeout

He seems socially unaware of his situation. Like when he showed up to the house with food for just himself.

>tfw no last name

>i dont want these cookies anymore

...

>The officer set up a meeting with Seligson on Westport Avenue and received a description of the type of car he would be driving, police said.
>When Seligson arrived at the pre-arranged meeting spot, police stopped him and searched his vehicle, police said.

Total entrapment.

>*smashes sunglasses on the ground while not doing anything but doing something stupid*

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LR0W6kaZm0M#t=739
top kek the decoy seems to enjoy """"""pretending""""" to be gay

I'm pretty sure only pedophiles use chatrooms nowadays

So its a drinking game for teetotalers.

I always hate how that kid lays it on so thick, like he's a cartoon caricature of what straight people think a confused gay teen is

>i wanna treat u as a sex slave
>wat
>i wanna treat u as a sex slave

Nice clarification

Female predators usually target children they've known for a long time (or are around a lot), and are more psychologically fucked in the head than male ones, often trying to force an emotional/romantic angle to it all.

(Most) male predators are solely in it for the sex/power trip.

> source: was /ss/'d with on multiple occasions growing up
> was easily the most emotionally scarring shit I've ever been through

>source: was /ss/'d with on multiple occasions growing up
>was easily the most emotionally scarring shit I've ever been through

Very conflicting emotions. I wanna say "Nice" for getting /ss/'d but at the same time I wanna offer condolences.

>I'm pretty sure only pedophiles use chatrooms nowadays
The FBI does too.

That's actually kind of impressive

can i get the news story about the guy that brought his son to meet a young boy

the computer

It was awful. As adults, we view those situations through a type of porno perspective, where we envision boys/teens to have the same knowledge and 'skill' as adults. I blame MILF/Cougar porn, hentai, and other forms of smut for this.

The sad fact of the matter is it's a disgusting combination of feeling violated, 'sensory overload', and being utterly confused at what's going on.

What was your age during those occasions? Why'd they do it? How did it happen?

You operate on the assumption people jerk it to SS imagining they're the boy. When its all about inflicting exactly what you said on the boy.

She's in the house, so if a pedo gets spooked and fires, it could go through a wall and hit her.
I'm not sure if Hansen wears a vest, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

Hansens too fat for a vest.

Besides, getting shot by one of these guys would be the crowning achievement of his career.

...

>it wasn't a she

what did he mean by that?

wtf! I love generals now!

oh wow, my shit down is being discussed on Cred Forums

It'd be a wall of text that reads like some garbage erotica, but basically once when I was six, from a family friend, a second time when I was 12, from an older girl in summer school (in b4 "you had to go to summer school at 12?"), and a third time when I was 14, from someone who's nameable/recognizable.

...

Once as six and twelve? That's fucking rough. I would have been okay with 14 though, that's where the hormones spike.

That sounds hilarious. The only way to make it better if it was his wife's son.

As I said before, you're saying that because you're retroactively exaggerating your childhood and assuming you were horny 24/7. Granted, at that age I didn't feel as confused and violated, I still didn't feel ~right~ at all.

is that cooking with jack?

>answer me

I lol'd

they caught one chick in this new investigation

>someone who's nameable/recognizable.

Fucking Spielberg strikes again.

They get around that by not charging for any crimes related to being told to go to the spot.

For instance, if they sent dude to private property then charged dude with trespassing, then that would be entrapment.

So its okay to entrap people as long as you don't charge them for crimes which police direction qualifies as entrapment.

>muh entrapment

Stop. You guys get blown the fuck out in every thread.

They're really not. I was horny 24/7 till I was raped. Then its all "wtf I hate sex now."

Course you also got triple fucked by having your experiences create airtight links between disgust/confusion and sex from the youngest age.

>talk about the ethics
>STUF IS LEGALLY NOT ENTRAPMENT LOL BTFO PEDO

stop

>when I was 14, from someone who's nameable/recognizable.

What? Who? No harm in saying who, because it's not like we have proof or anything.

Someone shoot the guy who edited these episodes.

This is absolute garbage TV

It takes a lot of editing to make hansen look intimidating.

But that guy that killed himself on the show never went to the trap house

stop coming into this thread if you hate it so much

No

No... the decoys often directly ask the guys to come over. Because they're not charging them "going to a minor's house."

because where they were filming he didn't have to, he had already broken the law in texas

>Using chili peppers to cure pink eye

Make me. Prove this is completely ethical.

Fair enough, I always forget that Americans have different laws for different states

t. irrelevant country

Going to the house isn't the the crime they're charging people with anywhere. As that would be entrapment.

They only get them to the house once they've committed crimes over the internet.

we have, its no longer an interesting debate to have. you should have listened years ago when we were having this exact same discussion

you're basically just serving as a thread shitter in a general for a show that you dont like. just leave. any other normal person would.

Have you checked if your beer is in the fridge, Cred Forums?

going over to the house with condoms is a big part of charging them, they dont just come to the house for the interview.

>get out of my schadenfreude hugbox

no.

Welcome to the internet outside of reddit.

Entrapment is a legal term, so yeah, that's exactly what matters.

this made me hard

Getting them to go to the house with items named in the chatlog is just for the sake of creating a ironclad link to the chat log.

If going to the house was any crime they were being charged with, it would be 100% entrapment.

>we have, its no longer an interesting debate to have. you should have listened years ago when we were having this exact same discussion

Where do you think we are?

end of the line bub

im not telling you to leave for my sake. you and your kind come here thread after thread and get blasted away by trying to claim that we're all hitler for watching this.

i dont know if you're still doing it because it's amusing or because you're honestly trying to prove yourself correct, but i cant imagine a sadder use of free time. at least browse threads relevant to your interests.

And it keeps coming up because people like to fudge whats legally happening in the show.

For instance, a lot of people, on both sides, after this many years, still think the act of going to the house is the crime. When that's not the case at all, or, at least, not one of the crimes the guys are being charged with. Because if going to the house was the crime, and the decoy was giving out addresses, then it would be, inarguably, entrapment.

the act of going to the house is not the crime they charge them with, but in usual investigations, failure to show up at the house means they're not charged.

Son, one of the reasons intelligent people abandoned the internet as a means of debate is because people like you could manufacture wins and then shut down, because they lacked the capacity to understand the criteria for winning or misunderstood something basic.

So, yea, this will be the last (you) you get on this subject line.

no one is trying to engage you in a debate

im not trying to argue user

im expressing genuine concern for someone who just lurks and shitposts in threads about a show they don't like

looks like the subway guy

No. And showing up is often a crime in many states.

Are you the same dude from yesterdays thread? I was arguing with some other pedo who kept using the "intelligence" card. Kept saying people were too dumb to understand him or something.

how does bail work

i don't get it

did he actually have 120k?

Negative. If that was a crime or they tried to charge for said crime, airtight entrapment defense.

Simple concept dog.

Same guy? Whats with the obsession about going to the house?

You pay 10% of whatever it is.

I was in yesterday's thread and saw nothing like that. So... that's definitely speaking more to the ways you felt insulted than anything that actually happened.

who was the most unapologetic pedo? Like a guy who said yeah I came here to fuck a little girl and cum inside her I don't give a fuck.

... its the subject of the conversation?

Aight dude, just keep in mind shutting down and calling people big ol' dumbies who don't understand you isn't a proper point. thnx

There are bail bondsman that will pay like 90% of your bail if you put down 10% and obviously they charge interest.

... well allow me, since apparently you've thrust all responsibility for this upon my shoulders, to apologize on behalf of the internet for ... making you feel dumb?

In Australia I had to pay my own bail, but it's not crazy expensive like in the U.S. it was $5k

nah son its okay just try and articulate proper points next time

Dude, I really have no idea what you're talking about. If you're fishing for (you)s, I honestly don't understand that either.

Probably Cleanest, Best Pleasure

"I don't even want this cookie anymore"
what do you guys think he mean by this?

BASED

is bail bonding illegal in ausfailia? Because that's the main reason bail inflated so ludicrously in the US.

just giving you advice on how to argue on the internet i guess

The cookie represented your autism and he represented you.

Pretty sure it is

There were a few that just admitted it and basically said "Yeah I'm into young boys/girls it's just a desire I have" and didn't really seem overly upset about it. I did like that one teacher that showed up that said that Hansen should kick his ass and then have him arrested and executed.

Are you suggesting that his autism is home-baked?

is it even possible to throw autism like a cookie?

despite it being ethical, the argument is a law based one. That is all that matters. And it is legally not entrapment

fucking dead

my favorite thing about pedos is now that they've lost the legality debate, they're falling back on morals. pedos trying to assert that hansen should stop bullying pedos is hilarious.

Just fuck off.

damn, gotta take three shots now.

Kek at the (you)s in his hand, I almost missed it

What? Whinch bingo are you playing? There is only one, faggot

And the law is retarded, in the literal sense. As society has changed dramatically since these laws were laid down.

So, when you start talking about changing laws, you start talking about the ethics of said laws.

Nobody outside of pedos think the law of "please dont solicit minors for sex and drive to their house to rape them" is retarded.

Why cant you just not go and rape kids?

Negro did you just cite "post quality" in a fucking general?

A general that was so dead before anyone started talking about your triggers that people were literally posting nothing but "bump?"

>a literal sense
You arent very familiar with the word "literal" are you?

i think you're a bit confused user, for a non-got general these threads are surprisingly pretty lively.

that is until the "it's about ethics in child raping" faggots come and start shitting everything up, my lord.

Why does he take out the snacks and present them like a homeless mime in the subway?

Son, control your kneejerking, its really not conducive to anything.

pls respond to points

Can we get these threads deleted/banned?
This is obviously spamming done by Hansen and his shitty show.

... so, lively, in your mind, is around 10 posts in five hours?

These threads literally do nothing until people start talking about the law/ethics.

Its kneejerking to defend child protection laws that statistically lower attempted child rapes and give them more legal protections under the law for these exact reasons? Are you a retard? Solicitation is a clear cut fucking thing. Just dont solicit a minor and you wont get in trouble. YOU need to be ab active participant in how this law is broken...

Jesus fuck, what is wrong with some of you

>muh entrapment
>first episode is travis bickle and he literally has a kill kit in his trunk

I'd be more than happy to if you could arrange your "points" in a manner that isn't pure kneejerk emotion.

Otherwise they will be addressed in the only appropriate manner. Mockery.

nah i dunno what you're trying to achieve by just blatantly lying, but they're fairly lively, yeah. the ""debates"" that crop up sure get the thread moving but it's such a shitty, retreading of topics literally covered years ago that it's more annoying than not.

I really see the value of these threads, trying to expose the american news media bullshit.

However, you would make a better use of your time focusing on the traditional economics/war/terrorism/politics bullshit: HvP is a circus and nobody really takes it seriously

>laws that statistically lower attempted child rapes
[citation needed]

All these stings really seem to do is create more "criminals."

user, you're the only one being mocked here.

I am baffled that you think supporting child protection laws is a kneejerk...you must not have any kids.

>why cant my son work in a sweatshop and have no rights when hes raped?

>blatantly lying

Hey man, its not my fault you can't read the timestamps of the first 20 or so posts.

>muh kill kit
Those are all items anyone is likely to have in their trunk retard.

If you solicit a minor and prove intent by driving to the location to fuck said minor, you are committing criminal acts. Yes. Why do you have trouble with this?

This is pretty clear cut shit

yeah that user has this big obsession with "knee jerk reactions" and "appeal to emotions", as if stating that it's not okay to solicit sex from a child is just an appeal to emotion, and we should explain exactly why soliciting sex from a child isn't okay

it's pathetic

And now with the emotional appeals. Record time.

sorry, i forgot that this has been the only tcap thread ever. silly me.

Do you really need basic answers to why we shouldnt legalize sex with minors and underdeveloped children?

>prove intent by driving to the location to fuck said minor

Literally not how the stings are operating. Getting them to the house (with specific items) is just to cement the link to the chatlog.

>THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Holy shit, do you watch the show or do any research about how they conduct these things you literal autist?

user, you're never going to get anywhere in debates if you try and dismiss critical points as appeals to emotion.

lemmie let you in on a protip: thinking of the children, in this instance where literal child rape is the subject at hand, isn't actually an appeal to emotion. that's pointing out that yeah, trying to solicit sex from a child isn't okay.

The fact you can't get off that subject, even though you were the first person to go to that subject (and you're so emotional you can't even reply to the correct posts) is only further strengthening my assertions you're on pure emotional kneejerk mode.

If you want to come down from there, and go back up the reply chain and not totally misrepresent the argument, I'll be happy to engage with you.

>being this retarded about criminal intent, solicitation and evidence for criminal intent

Driving to the house is intent. Get bent pedos

Yep.

>literal child rape is the subject at hand

Didn't realize hansen was using literal children as the decoys.

See

>is this some kind of setup or something?

Oh boy, it's another Entrapment The Show thread

Irrelevant. They can't charge them for that. It'd be entrapment. They can only charge for crimes where instructing the perpetrator to go to a place and bring things is not the crime unto itself.

user, you dont have an argument

Is it legal entrapment? No
Is driving to the house literal legally defined as intent? Yes
Is chatting up what you believe to be a minor online legally solicitation? Yes
Is solicitation of a minor a criminal act? Yes

Get fucked. There is no "but maybe"

To the pedofag:

Is this honestly how you want to spend your Friday/Saturday?

Has it not occurred to you that you're alone in this thread, attacking people who are just trying to enjoy their show of choice?

Do you think that, perhaps maybe, this isn't the thread for you?

Keep bitching about how no one will debate you like a true gentleman and how everyone's too emotional for you all you want, you're not going to get anywhere.

We know its perfectly ethical. We know it's perfectly legal.

You're not getting anywhere.

You have been proven wrong in every fucking thread. They do charge you with intent to solicit a minor, it is not entrapment. You have no idea what you are talking about

As per usual in these threads...

The last post, before all the kneejerking and emotional appeals, was .

Did they actually get the rabbi, or did he somehow magically avoid court?

Again, its just your opinion that the law is retarded to you. That isnt a factual point. You have proved nothing.

>intent to solicit a minor
... so in every thread its somehow never stuck with you that "INTENT TO SOLICIT A MINOR" is not a legal statute? That the crimes these stings are built around is "SOLICITATION OF A MINOR," a crime that is committed over the internet, and getting them to the house is just to link them to the chat log and film them without their consent?

Will it stick with you this time?

I honestly dont care how the laws make you personally feel. Prove that we should change solicitation laws based on something concrete and factual or get fucked pedo

So you have no problem with a legal statute that is specifically written to protect the rights of imaginary individuals? Because the people who wrote it couldn't concieve of a situation where it was possible to solicit a minor that wasn't face to face?

Hey, that's exactly where I wanted to go with this. But people started kneejerking all over themselves about literal child rape.

Solicitation is the crime retardo, criminal intent is the factor used in the severity and degrees of those crimes.

Why do you struggle with understanding that criminal intent serves a real legal function in criminal cases? Why are pedo neets so uneducated on how their own country's laws work?

It wont stick because you are still half wrong

Why do pedos type so fucking poorly?
Did none of them take basic keyboarding in school, or even know how to use a fucking computer?
Also, have they not seen or heard of this show before?
It boggles my fucking mind that people still fall for the bait so hard.

>imaginary individuals
Oh fucking christ, here we go with this tired bullshit. How many times do ppl like you need this explained before you shut the fuck up?

The whole logistics of this particular statute kinda falls apart once you realize the statute is literally written to criminalize virtual crimes against imagined individuals in impossible scenarios. So talking about intent, severity, and degrees in a criminal theater that simply isn't within the scope of reality just smacks of total insanity.

>I was stung by a bee a few months ago. It was so bad I needed surgery to reduce the swelling and remove the stinger. Dr. Wolin did a fantastic job. I even heard the nurse jokingly say that Dr. Wolin has a knack for sting operations.

If you have something concrete to offer that isnt some stupid pedo "muh entrapment" or "imaginary people" meme then go right the fuck ahead with your rational and grounded points backed by some concrete evidence...

>inb4 assblasted pedofags crying entrapment
>the only reason the original show got canned is because of one of these creeps an heroing

codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-33-021.html

Read it and weep, negro.

The statute is specifically written to protect the rights of completely imaginary individuals.

I honestly clock out of this thread the moment the autism gets to the "imaginary people" level of retarded. Ive seen this explained in every thread, and you fucks just dont care to realize how stupid this argument gets

Is Episode 4 really not out until next week? What a joke.

>Massive gap between episode 2 and 3
>Suddenly now there's an even bigger gap between 3 and 4

I'm just here for the memes and Handsome

and the home-baked cookies

Is there a point with this? Pedos really getting desperate

see Not my fault there are legal statutes on the books specifically written to protect the rights of imaginary people.

I can understand "nope'ing out" once you realize you're defending a law that protects the imaginary from the real.

Do you want to finish your cookie?

C-can I have some milk?

>If I take my gun and pretend to shoot my neighbor and the gun goes off.
>"oh no, I was only pretending to shoot my gun I didnt want to shoot him, the victim was imaginary"
>If I plan to murder my wife but the hired hitman is a cop
>"oh no, the crime was imaginary. It was just a prank bro. My wife wasnt real the whole time"
>no such thing as intent
>there is no crime because there is no victim
>duhhhhh
>crimes can only exist if they are successful

I hope one day you realize how retarded your arguments have been and how we are all laughing at you

You keep just saying shit and taking actual laws and projecting that its "muh imaginary people" meme. You still explain or defend nothing of substance

See
Sorry, I responded to the wrong post

Are you just that angry or just intentionally avoiding linking to ?

I also like how you manufacture real world scenarios to make the "imaginary victim" argument look stupid. When you know full well they aren't relevant in the slightest.

>you're defending a law that protects the imaginary from the real.
You just keep repeating this as if it is evidence of itself you dumb faggot. Its circular reasoning.

I posted a legal statute that specifically defines a minor as anything someone believes to exist and is under the age of 17.

The fuck more you want from me?

The Ultimate Loop Hole

Have a sheriff arrest Chris Hansen and all TCAP staff for accessory to all the crimes the Predators have been arrested for. By creating a decoy, they are willingly participating in the "crimes" the suspects are partaking in. There would be NO crime if the decoy was not involved.

The imaginary people argument you posted IS stupid, faggot. But for some reason you need a dozen threads and a hundred anons to explain it to you...and you still dont get it

I keep referencing it because its specifically how Texas Penal Code § 33.021. Online Solicitation of a Minor (codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-33-021.html) is written.

What your fucking legal point is. What any of your points even are

>The imaginary people argument you posted IS stupid

Yet, its law. Texas Penal Code § 33.021. Online Solicitation of a Minor.

How many times does it need to be linked before you read it?

And you have a problem with someone thinking they are gonna fuck a minor and then getting in trouble for driving to a sting house..in the hopes of fucking a minor? You have an issue with that?

Women are in a seller's market, they don't have to use chat rooms

>hey, look, Texas Penal Code § 33.021. Online Solicitation of a Minor specifically defines a minor as not needing to actually exist

>WTF IS YOUR POINT HOLY SHIT WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IMAGINARY PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK

i am so confused right now.

user, I dont think you actually read your own link or understand basic legal language..

>drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0Bx5i7KZDL0-4WWlaaHBJZTRhVms

Legend has it that he's STILL waiting to take a piss

Yes, I have issues with criminal statutes that don't require an actual, potential, or even possible victim.

lol, crazy rite??

Part of what you are doing is reading the law in the way you want to, the other half is then assuming that the way you have read it is somehow indicative to like...idk? Something wrong? Your points arent very clear or easy to follow

>(a)In this section:

>(1)“Minor” means:

>(A)an individual who isrepresents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or

>(B)an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.

Is there another way to read this? No, there isn't. Its completely straight forward. The individual doesn't even need to exist.

Yes. But its not my fault you dont underatand criminal intent or how youd prob agree with this statute in literally ANY other scenario outside of this pedo defending

My problem is we're talking about criminal intent towards no actual, potential, or even possible victim.

I dont know how else to explain to you how this isnt wrong and how using "muh imaginary" is a gross oversimplification to the method of how the law is carried out

>What'd you bring for me?
>"I brought dinner for myself"
C'mon Papi

So even completely ignoring 1B, the law is written so a person claiming to be underage makes another person guilty of a crime.

Then with 1B, the decoy doesn't even have to make a claim or exist at all, all that matters is what the actor believes.

The fact people are being sent to jail with this law, alone, should kinda scream to you the justice system is reading the law the exact same way I am.

...which there would be if the perp chatted anyone else other than a decoy...it doesnt matter that the decoy isnt real, the pedo actively tries to fuck what he believes is a minor. Chats a minor explicitly. Drives to the house.

There is nothing wrong with how the law is conducted. Dont solicit any child...thats literally the first step. If you arent solicitng kids at all, then you wont get in trouble

Jesus fuck

Well I just solicited ten kids in my imagination. Arrest me.

>kids

Shit, have to drink again.

You act like there is some conspiracy to lie to people about the decoy's age. Nobody goes to fucking prison for havinf conversations whith minors or with what they believe to be minors, they get in prison for explicit solicitation

It doesnt matter that the decoy is real or not. Why do you not get this?

He thought he had game, and wanted her to say, "what about me?" So he could say "You're the desert!"

Cause all the ladies gush over having their vaginas smell like cheap chinese takeout.

>You act like there is some conspiracy to lie

... I'm acting like there is an active law in the texas penal system that specifically defines a minor as something a person believes to exist.

Seriously, are you just incapable of staying on subject?

Its not in your imagination you autistic degenerate. Going into a chatroom and telling what I believe is a 12 year old that "im gonna drivr over to your house and fuck your cunnypuss" isnt just imagination you fucking slime

DONT SOLICIT KIDS, nothing happens unless this happens. Dont fucking do that, and you are golden. Pretty simple stuff

Really makes you fucking think

So you're completely fine with a having a legal statue on the books that's less than a step away from thought crime because its protecting imaginary children.

Yep, humanity is fucked.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this since the conviction lies in the intent and proving that the solicitation exists

Which isnt "imaginary" you fucking cockgobbler

Calm down Chris

If you get caught stealing from a fake store, are you innocent?

Seriously, answer this quandary faggot

>since the conviction lies in the intent
To fuck an imaginary minor.

Oh and here we are ladies and gents, the "muh thought crime slippery slope" meme thats both nonsensical and utterly retarded

Nice to meet you again, samefag. Arent you tired from yesterday and the day,before that and the day before that of reposting the same shitty arguments?

Is the inventory fake too? The fuck is a "fake store?" Do they have "fake permits?" Did they have to file "fake applications" with the "fake licensing bureau" then buy their stock from a "fake wholesaler?"

Which doesnt matter..

>he meshund da thought crimes so hesa talkin bouts da slippara slopes every1 chears mee ons 4 ownin dis scrub

for the love of god man.

Its a legal statute that specifically criminalizes an act based upon what a person believed.

Can you not answer the question? Lets call it a convincing sting operation of a store that sits there and waits for people to rob it. Then someone robs it. Are they innocent? Or is the crime "imaginary" because the store wasnt real?

Everything matters. Everything is important.

years from now people are going to have forgotten all about this then see that statute and all the cases prosecuted under it and apply it to something currently unrelated and, suddenly, imagined victims, imagined victims everywhere.

And again, because you dont seem very bright, the crime isnt "they wanted to fuck a kid..in their imagination". Its not in their head. You keep repeating these tired points...its not invading a pedos brain and convicting them for thought crimes

>it's a 42 year old guy claims he's 30 episode

>I got BTFO so I'm going to try to be loldeep

Fuck off with th imagined victims meme already. Not even people who study law agree with you

>muh pedo "virtue" signaling

>get gun
>go to somebodies house
>shoot through all the windows
>turns out nobody was home
What the fuck man? I was just killing an imaginary person?

Oh, I see, you're manufacturing another real world, physical scenario to justify protecting imaginary people from virtual acts.

So, yes, if you commit a real crime against a decoy, yet still physical institution, you are guilty of a crime. Similar to trap car stings.

I have just about zero confidence you're able to see the distinction here between the aforementioned and a virtual crime against a completely imaginary victim.

IF I ROB A FAKE STORE, AM I COMMITTING A CRIME?

I understand you want the "imagined victims" point to stop, as you can't counter it. At all.

I cant counter a point that isnt grounded in the first place in anything substantial besides your "feels"

>implying the law matters when you just want to see retarded pedos getting btfo

smile and optimism, BEGONE!

... except its grounded firmly in section 1B of Texas Penal Code § 33.021.

Lol wait, now are you saying that trap cars are unethical to?

Im trying to apply the same logic of using decoys in stings to other types of stings and crimes. You apparently cant really answer honestly...

When applying the same logic, you are saying that if I tob a fake store or steal a fake car, I am somehow not committing a criminal act despite me believing that these are things im stealing?

At what point were you diagnosed with autism?

>Lol wait, now are you saying that trap cars are unethical to?
Reading comprehension son.

Pedo #1 is a Trump fan.
twitter.com/stevebuck6985

I dont think you understand the conversation anymore, as you are getting circular again. You pointed out the law, I agree with the law, explain why I do. You keep going full autismo and reading extra things and making leaps of logic that arent there just to fit your pedo defense narrative...then you pulled out the thought crime boogeyman, and I stopped giving a fuck after that

Then answer the question faggot

If I rob from a fake store but believe it to be real, am I committing a criminal act when I show up and steal fake goods?

Think bigger.

If all people on Earth suffocate, there would be no more crime, period.

We need to arrest AIR.

>whipped cream
>14 year-old girl
>a cat

What was his endgame?

I want to fuck Hansen's hair

>ywn date one of the decoys and have them do their 12 year old voice when you fuck

Why was I even born?

Its okay, I know texas penal code section 33.021 is pretty much the end of this debate. As it literally creates crimes against imaginary victims.

>you're compassion not you're anger

Shouldn't you bring alcohol for a pedo date?
These pedophiles give pedophilia a bad name.

how is literacy and reading comprehension falling in a society literally built around text based communication

Lol oh kek, faggot.

Sure. Whatever you say

I'd say they're giving pedos a good name.

As they aren't actually going for pedos in these stings.

Hows dodging the question three times now?

A gracious concession.

If I rob a fake store, there are imaginary victims

Am I a criminal? Yes or no?

So that's three times you've confirmed near complete illiteracy.

Read

Being fed up isnt a concession. Are you also one of those autists who needs to "win" discussions?

I saw it, and disagreed with you. Are you slow? Answer the question I asked a post before...answer on if that is a crime.

You conflated what that user said while at the same time dodging the scenario

I was just hoping you had a verifyable read on 33.021 that I was missing somehow. As the way its written, the "OR" at the end of 1A means, to me, the criteria detailing a real person in 1A isn't necessary to define a completely imagined victim by 1B.

But hey, pointing to a legal statute is completely circular, right?

>directly answer question
>LOL ANSWER THE QUESTION WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING THE QUESTION STOP DODGING THE QUESTION

This is the fabled reading comprehension trolling, isn't it.

You literally didnt answer the question, you changed the questions meaning and answered what you want and hoped nobody would notice you dumb faggot

Whats circular is reading extra shit in a law, like your autism for instance
>it thought crime reee
>being charged for imagination
>reeee

^none of which happens or is in the statute. But who cares, when you can make laws mean whatever you want, right?

I said, explicitly, a real, physical act, committed against a physical, yet decoy (or fake) establishment, is a crime. Similar to how stealing a trap car, is a crime.

Second line of .

>all that sexual tension
get a room, guys.

Physicality is not necessary.
A purchase you make over Steam is still a purchase.
What matters here is intent, and having an acutal target or not is completely irrelevant.
You may disagree with this, but that just means youre wrong.

>I object your honor. I am not a pedophile, but a hebephile.
>Fine. Sentencing is next week.

Then solicitation of an underaged decoy is also a crime...

I can't even tell what you're rambling about at this point.

But please, tell us all how it magically becomes entrapment when its decoys of underaged kids?

If we were talking about people walking up to real people whom they believed to be underage from visual inspection, I wouldn't even be in these threads.

But we're talking about imaginary people.

You are the only person to mention entrapment in the last hour, yo.

Because you're clinically retarded.
Real life laws still apply to the internet. Deal with it, you pedo cuck.

How do you not see the irony in you saying this? How do you not understand?

>Real life laws still apply to the internet.

They shouldn't. Just further reinforces the idea the internet and the real world are the same thing. Which they aren't. Normalfags don't get this because their feefees are real so the internet is reals!

Every statue needs it's own version of online crime that specifically precludes the ability to prosecute for crimes against completely imagined victims.

But hey, that's just me being sane and recognizing mediated social interaction as a pale shadow of actual social interaction.

>we are talking about imaginary hitmen when cops go on craiglist and pose as murderers whom you want to hire for a hit

You are a retard

>Dope dealer takes out his gun.
>Are you a cop? Because if you're a cop you have to tell me. I wouldn't sell drugs to a cop, so if you trick me into selling drugs to a cop, then it's entrapment. You can't bust me for an imaginary crime!
>Uh... I'm not a cop.

I know I'm late to respond to this, but I've literally been having /ss/ fantasies since I was 12. While I'm sure I would have been very anxious if it actually happened, I don't get the impression I would have been as scarred as yourself.
This is assuming I was genuinely attracted to the woman of course.

We arent talking about imaginary people in their head you fucking pedo cuck

Because there is a HUGE difference between "12/f/urhouse!" and being in the physical presence of a 12 year old girl.

>Vote Gary Johnson!

No... you're still confusing the issue. There's a real victim in those instances whom you're planning to murder, and trying to hire someone to murder.

Whereas in these stings and the statute in general, there doesn't need to be.

And like we keep telling you, the mode of communication for solicitation doesnt make it any les soliciting of a minor.

>officer, you cant chargr me for solicitation
>why
>I used a carrier pigdeon, so its a THOUGHT CRIME NOW

i wish i could stab you to death

fucking pedo

>Every statue needs it's own version of online crime that specifically precludes the ability to prosecute for crimes against completely imagined victims.

Why?

Does this also apply to letters?
The Phone?

the point is that the person believes there is enough to travel and secure intent. He ha salreadt solicited what he believed was a minor. Not because it was "in his head", but because the decoy was established as a minor...in physical communication. It isnt entrapment and it isnt a thought crime

>we found a carrier pigdeon with a note for any 12 year old girl who reads this to come to [my address] for sex
>book'em

This is a perfectly sane scenario in your mind?

You realize that crimes dont always need explicit or direct victims...right? Do you have a juvenlie understanding of criminal law?

>to travel and secure intent.

As has been said, over and over, the travel is just to create the link to the chat log. Its completely irrelevant here and in the statute in questions.

If you tell me that you are 12, and (it doesnt matter HOW I communicate with you) I ask you for sex, knowing full well it is illegal and you are a minor, sending that bird to you is a criminal act...yes

>You realize that crimes dont always need explicit or direct victims

...

>There's a real victim in those instances whom you're planning to murder, and trying to hire someone to murder.

I mean i said as much, didn't I? Do I have some weird disease where I'm just not writing what I think I'm writing?

And again again, we keep explaining to you how this is not correct.

This pedo has been in every single fucking thread. He's some kind of Libertarian nutjob. We're all sheeple and pawns of SJWs licking the jackboots of fascism. According to him the cops shouldn't do crime prevention because it's all thought crimes. Drunk driving laws are a thought crime because you haven't killed anyone yet, etc. Don't waste your time.

Well, now you're defining a real individual to which the message is being sent.

The statute I keep citing doesn't require that.

Why arent people who defend these autistic points like you at least acknowledging that you shouldnt solicit a child in the first place? Why wont you at least admit to that?

It doesn't matter how many times you say something that is wrong.

Hansen and crew have directly stated that, technically, getting them to come to the house isn't a crime unto itself, merely to link them to the chat log and film them without their consent.

As it shouldnt...since I shouldnt be actively soliciting anyone I believe to be a minor in the first place

wtf I hate Trump now

And the courts where these cases are donenand the post interviews after nearly every episode explain how arrival at the house establishes also actual intent. Which leads to harsher convictions, had they not just stayed home and be charged with a les severe infraction of solicitation

This isnt hard stuff to understand

Because the actual criminal act shouldn't matter when there's a law on the books that specifically criminalizes any criminal act against completely intangible individuals that exist only within a person's mind.

And trying to go "U JES WENNA FUG DA KIDS" in response to talking about statutes that allow for prosecution of crimes against people that don't exist doesn't constitute much of a counter argument.

The idea of criminalizing acts against completely imaginary (not potential or even possible, but people who can't exist) should bother anyone remotely sane.

Prosecutor here. I'm getting a huge kick out of the guy or gal attempting to find a deductive fallacy with imagined persons. You will never find a jury that will excuse you of a crime just because a decoy was used and not a real child. A kind reminder that the guys you have seen so far went hunting for this sexual opportunity in parts where children are known to occupy the web. This runs parallel to individuals approaching undercover officers after arranging a drug deal via phone or text. The message is simple. Do not under any circumstance seek and solicit children for sexual acts.

which is irrelevant, as the sting is built around getting people to commit a crime then link themselves to the chat log by going to the house.

>reminder that trumps rape case was refiled and will be processed for a new court date in the next few months
After thenother lawsuits pending of course, especially the new one involving the fbi concerning him using campaign funds for personal purchases

But they dont exist in the persons mind you retardo...cops arent diving into peoples heads and convicting them.

You just wanna fuck kids.

The instant crimes against a child comes up, nothing really matters in the mind of a jury filled with sub-90 IQ senior citizens.

They'd push for the death penalty if they could. As people stop being rational once "children" come up.

Hence the reason this show exists.

They dont make people commit crimes you literal autist

Why cant it just be this simple? I dont understand the logic some of these people have when talking about the "muh entrapment" or "imaginary persons" meme

>open your eyes, sheeple!
>first they came for the pedophiles, but I did not speak up...
Reminder that the Libertarian Party nearly put the legalization of child porn on their platform.

Never said anything of the sort and you know it.

Libertarians are retarded. They have literally no grasps on how real world economics work and live in some autistic fantasy.

I'm sure he believes Chris Hansen is a Reptilian overlord.

Yea, that's right. I'm just insane. No one should have a problem with the fact its literally impossible to find an impartial jury for any crime that affects a child.

You:
which is irrelevant, as the sting is built around getting people to commit a crime then link themselves to the chat log by going to the house
>built around getting people to commit a crime
>getting people to commit a crime
>getting
>people
>to
>commit
>crime

Are you illiterate with your own posts?

Yes you did

wow, dude, you're literally quibbling over inducement and enticement in response to someone who wasn't even talking about entrapment.

Why are you so desperate to talk about entrapment?

Thats not even

What are you talking about faggot? Im just explaining for user how this is what he literally said...in his direct quote...

yea yea, I know, its only white kids where that's true. But I'm already being accused of being a SJW liberatrian follower of david icke.

apart from you, entrapment hasn't come up, seriously, for hours. Its not part of the conversation at all.

You just trying to steer this away from the legal statutes that allow for crimes against imagined people?

>you're literally quibbling over inducement and enticement

Im quite literally not. Sorry if you are having trouble following other conversations

Uh, user, I havent talked about entrapment once...I was quoting another user. Please keep up

>make people commit crimes
>get people to commit crimes

there's a really subtle distinction there.

so you're just trolling? that's cool.

Not really in the context of this...either way, they arent forcing, making or getting people to commit crimes. They are reactionary AFTER the crime has been committed.

No? You just cant follow the conversation im having apparently, pedo

If your standing in front of a jury it means you acted upon the assumed opportunity to gain carnal knowledge of a minor. The call for rationality by the charged for for the charged Is the deductive fallacy that poster was looking for earlier. If your in front of that jury it means you showed up to that house under the pretense to commit sexual misconduct with a minor or worse, as previously stated, carnal knowledge of a minor.

He was going to eat out two kinds of pussy that day.

"getting people to commit crimes" does not imply force.

Is english your third or fourth language?

Actually the stings are built entirely around catching people with online solicitation of a minor. Getting them to the house (as opposed to a public place) is just for the sake of filming them without consent.

If anyone is bad at English, it isnt me. I was stating that none of the synonyms for get or want or make apply to what PJ do.

The rest of your post is irrlevant

What I see are people desperately trying to steer the conversation away from virtual crime against imagined victim.

No its not samefag. Weve told you no fifty times already

You are insane, yes.
Some kind of paranoia. Maybe schizoid personality disorder.

So that's a yes to english being your third or fourth language.

Seriously dude, you described the stings wrong, got corrected, now you're pretending to be retarded.

Do you get something out of this? As I have never understood trolling.

Because that point will always be retarded

and you've been wrong every time. It doesn't matter how many times you say it.

If going to the house was the crime, the stings would be entrapment, as there is no way for the decoy to give the address and have it not be entrapment.

As that would be inviting someone into an open bank vault and convicting them of attempted robbery.

I still fail to see why you believe I have a por grasp of my own language that I jave a legit degree in, is it to deflect how retarded your point was? The statement is still wrong, PJ does not make or get people to commit crimes...

and completely solid, as its backed by a literal penal code that defines victims of online solicitation in such a way as they don't even need to be real people.

Because "getting someone to do something" is worlds apart from "making someone do something."

Stings are literally built around getting people to commit crimes, rather than making them commit crimes.

Your online degree in english is going to your head.

That's not even the definition of entrapment, you crazy schizoid you.

It doesnt matter if the bank vault is open, if you show up with an established intent to rob it, you are committing a criminal act.

Dont rob a fucking bank. Are you so impressionable that you cant say no to committing an illegal act?

Ah, you're being silly now.

...

god I hope you're being silly.

white people: the webseries

You don't even know the definition of thought crime and entrapment.

>Stings are literally built around getting people to commit crimes, rather than making them commit crimes.
But this is factually incorrect...the stings dont "get" themcto commit those crimes, the crime is committed whether they were the buffer there or not...the perps commit the crime, they arent being coerced or made to do it...they are just there, being the bait for someone who willingly commits said crime

You have a juvenile understanding of law

Real life crimes still apply to the internet.

I belive this to be the one from earlier. I can't tell if this is the use of sarcasm during a discussion or ignoratio elenchi but I think we have put this inquiry to rest.

Its quite seriously not silly.

Punjab, your third rate online degree in english is really under-equipped for this.

I've literally been accused of being a SJW libertarian follower of david icke though.

Nothing I said was wrong. Also, I'm American you faggot.

"have a sit on the brownies"

'what were you doing here tonight in this chatlog?'

>american with an english degree

... only a punjab would think that's better.

Lol I'm not even Indian. You are projecting so hard tonight.

so, wait, you think I'm indian now?

Or do you, like everyone in history to use that term, not know what projecting means?

>its a how many times can you explain to pedos how it is not entrapment or a thought crime episode

There has quite literally been a dozen threads worth of hundreds of explanations for why you pedo neets are wrong...

You can project outward, assuming others are what you are projecting, or project inwards, taking your own personal views, thoughts and opinions and projecting them forward to other people.

Projecting doesnt mean only one thing you retarded faggot.

And this comment is still ignoratio elenchi. Being a SJW has no bearing on court proceedings, sting operations, or capture of the accused.

>actually doesnt knownwhat the word projecting means

Wew, keep making yourself look like an autist

user, in this case you are projecting that he's Indian.

Especially considering the Department of Justice's legal definition of entrapment is literally in the OP for every general.

Yes, were I standing in front of jury I'd be sure to mention how I was accused of being a SJW libertarian david icke follower.

Seriously what the fuck are you on and can I have some