User. Take a seat

20.2

I prefer to stand.

Hey boo.

Sup Chris? I haven't talked to any female that's not already a friend in months now so I don't know why you're here

Can you give me ride home?

>Takes out gun, shoots hanson, makes run for it.
you know it going to happen one day.

How is your new show going Jeremy Clarkson?

Was increasing your sentence from 2 years, 1 year after good behavior with probation to life part of your plan?

This guy should be in jail. What vile sack of shit.

Some of these guys are getting 20-50 years user.

HERE

WE

GO

Maybe the amount of sedentary hours per day

No they don't.

That's correct. Low carb diet does wonders, though.

DUDE ENTRAPMENT LMAO

*gets v&*

What?! No way!

could of sworn one of the guys got 20-50 years, but that might of been for finding kiddy porn on his computer after his appearance.

LIKE CLOCKWORK, THE PEDO DEFENCE FORCE SHOWS UP

I like to think that Chris never stopped hunting predators between TCAP and Hansen vs Predator and before he dies, he'll release an entire library of predator stings from his private collection.

I just wanted to hang out. I've never done anything like this before.

but that's wrong you fucking retard, and those posts are the opposite of what you claim

i hope this is bait or you really are genuinely retarded

Did he ever make it to the beach?

...

>pedo approaches kitchen table to set down his stuff
>we hear a shotgun being pumped
>a shot rings out and the pedo's former head is spattered across the opposing wall
>chris steps out of a darkened doorway, smoking weapon in hand, and smirks at the mutilated carcass
Geez, this show is getting really rucking brutal. Why did no one tell me about this?

crimewatchdaily.com/videos/0-xfrpzodc/

creep of the week preview, including highlights such as
>ohh i did not mean to send that
>ohhhhhh
>OHHH IS RIGHT
>so you just have a picture of yourself out and about, around town and ACCIDENTALLY hit the penis pic, WHOOPS

still no COW BOY BAY BE but the preview says hansen is going to be going in even harder on this literal child loving faggot, i can't wait

also, don't know about the rest of you anons but it's airing on my local ABC station at 3EST as part of the crime watch daily full 60 minute block

will probably be on the actual website after it's aired, so some time later today for the yuropoors

Every one of the ones since his new show got like 7 years, suspended after serving 3. And sex offender list forever.

He wanted to wear the ears of all the predators he caught during his downtime as a necklace on the show but some suits vetoed it.

Can I use the bathroom before you arrest me?

>no

>"I think you should leave....."

so can someone explain this to me? i get these faggots are retarded and get nailed for physically coming down to have sex with a minor. what i don't get is why they get charged with the shit they say online.

>muh thought crime
>muh relativistic morality
>your laws are based on feels
>in MY country it is legal to fuck 14 year old girls
>fucking 14 year olds was legal in the past why shouldn't it be legal now
>btw I feel that the laws on age of consent are outdated and should be changed

>what i don't get is why they get charged with the shit they say online.
the crimes they were charged with usually involves the act of sending porn/talking lewdly/soliciting sex to people under a certain age.

...

>it wasn't a she

They send nude pictures and talk abou sex with underage children.

>get charged with the shit they say online.
They not just talk. Driving to child home = showing intent. So it is already a crime.

I'm not mad brah come at me

Why do they always stay in the room with him? And then confess? Fucking hell

>underage children.

What underage children?

the children they thought they were gonna pound.
>inb4 thought crime
miblaw.com/lawschool/impossibility-defense-in-criminal-law/
>Factual Impossibility – the defendant could not complete the crime because…; this defense seeks to negate the actus reus. The defendant is arguing that something got in the way of his completion of the crime. Generally, a factual impossibility defense is not permitted.
Thing that got in the way: there wasn't really any sweet and pure underaged punani to be snatched

that's what i don't get. there's no timestamp photos for the bait so there's no proof the person behind the computer is of actual young age. there's literally an old ass bitch pretending to be a child.

i mean shit isn't that what cybersex is, just roleplaying shit? how is any of that worthy of being a crime, especially if the bait encourages it?

They are beta virgins, and Hansen strong alpha male. You will obey him too user.

>it's a homosexual pedo episode

papi

The new decoys are fucking awful actors

You realize putting all of that up front you're admitting the criminal theater in which this stuff is built around is entirely manufactured and based in a situation that has no basis in reality where its just about impossible to argue for the existence of even a potential victim, right?

>the children they "thought" they were gonna pound.

So thinking about imaginary children.

>Factual Impossibility

Factual impossibility, is like shooting at someone behind fence and because they moved but you thought they were there, its still attempted murder. REQUIRES ACTUAL REAL WORLD VICTIM.

>Legal impossibility

Is literally what I am say, no victim no crime. If I decide to molest a tree thinking its a child, It is not child molestation because there is no child.

doesn't matter, see >i mean shit isn't that what cybersex is
Can't cyber with an underaged person if you're an adult. It's literally against the law.
>just roleplaying shit
kek that was a defense in one of the TCaP episodes. Didn't work.
>how is any of that worthy of being a crime, especially if the bait encourages it?
Doesn't matter, the predators initiate and keeps on engaging them in sexual bantz.
>built around is entirely manufactured and based in a situation that has no basis in reality where its just about impossible to argue for the existence of even a potential victim, right?
I don't claim to be an expert in law, but the fact that a vast majority of predators caught have been convicted says otherwise.

This guy looks like Dennis & Dee's father from Always Sunny that turned out to be a pedo.

Wouldn't suprise me if he was one too. Hiding in plain sight and all that.

If you want to pay for a murder, cops will make fake murder and will show you fake evidenced.
And in the end you still will be convicted for a murder.

and that's my point, who gives a shit what is said online? it's setting a precedent that what is said online is anywhere near the same as actually doing the same. it's like saying i'm going to kill you. so fucking what?

the only crime they should be charged with is actually showing up to have sex.

Paying anyone for a murder is illegal, even a police officer. Talking to another adult about sex is not illegal.

>. it's like saying i'm going to kill you. so fucking what?
Yes, and if after that you will be near my house with a gun, you will be convicted for an attempted murder.

>is like shooting at someone behind fence and because they moved but you thought they were there, its still attempted murder. REQUIRES ACTUAL REAL WORLD VICTIM.
Actually, even if they were never there at all, but you had the intent to shoot them, that is still attempted murder.
>If I decide to molest a tree thinking its a child, It is not child molestation because there is no child.
Now this is just baseless exaggeration.
There had been countless decisions convicting these guys. Argue with the people who wrote the law, not the people who follow/enforce them :^)

Legend says no, but he did get some dank homemade cookies, before they unjustly executed him :'(

>the only crime they should be charged with is actually showing up to have sex
So, intent? And which is what they are charged with?

Stop trying to bait you faggot. They say explicit shit online, and show up to a house with the purpose of having sex with an under aged person.

The shit the say online is evidence used to establish this wasn't a one time thing and is a premeditated crime. A fantasy or RP is either of those when you try and take it into the real world, which they fucking do. Nigger.

execpt they're not adult for the predator he think they're are children
if you stab/shoot a corpse thinking he was alive you still tried to killed someone

*isn't either of those

>i'm not gay
everytime

No you are wrong, it basically verbatim the law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense

>There had been countless decisions convicting these guys.

Its only because they trip them up and get them to talk themselves in to trouble.

The problem you keep skipping in these debates is people aren't being charged for showing up to the house. They're being charged with a statute that criminalizes the shit they said online. As proven by the fact they've chased down people who didn't even show up to the house.

>if you stab/shoot a corpse thinking he was alive you still tried to killed someone
This is the best example of impossibility. Like children-can-understand-it simple

>if you stab/shoot a corpse thinking he was alive you still tried to killed someone

Except its wrong, you cant be charged with murdering, a dead person.

...

i'm not in the US but this kinda thing exist in my country

>the fact that a vast majority of predators caught have been convicted says otherwise.

That's a separate legal concept at work. The law is presumed to be correct when it is being applied. So if there was a law on the books stating that farting while riding a bicycle was illegal, the ridiculous of said law would not be a valid legal defense.

>kinda thing

expert "opinion" here

you will be charge with attempted murder
not murder obliviously

>people aren't being charged for showing up to the house
They are. Watch 3rd episode. He convicted for attempted sex with a child.

>No you are wrong, it basically verbatim the law.
From your link
>An example of a failed attempt of law is a person who shoots at a tree stump, believing that he is committing attempted murder; that person cannot be prosecuted for attempted murder as there is no manifest intent to kill by shooting a stump.
From your example
>If I decide to molest a tree thinking its a child, It is not child molestation because there is no child.
See the correct example does not mention anything about the person shooting the tree thinking that the tree was anything other than a tree. He believes he is murdering a tree. In your example, you were molesting a tree believing it to be a child.
tl;dr you didn't understand what you have read

>yfw its not a girl

>Except its wrong, you cant be charged with murdering, a dead person.
Attempted murder, yes.
If you knew that nigga was dead and you wanted to shoot him anyway, you cannot be prosecuted for murder. Mutilation of a corpse perhaps, but not murder.

>they are watch a specific episodes!

fuck you're dumb.

Go watch the episodes where they chase down people who didn't even enter the house.

ok expert law guy
so if try to run you over but miss you
no victim no crime right ?

I wonder if Papi has to call Bubba boss in prison as he gets slammed from behind

Reckless driving, a crime because its quite easy to argue the existence of potential victims in the form of injuried/killed people and/or damage to property.

they're charging them for what they said online, not simply them showing up to the house. which again, is setting the precedent that it's ok to police shit that is said on the internet. there's also absolutely NO PROOF that the person on the other end is a legit child.

going back to what i said, it's like saying it's ok to charge someone with attempted murder for simply saying i'm gonna kill u fgt online, regardless of whether or not the threat is genuine.

>I was just curious, that's the whole reason why I'm here.

I'd say it's ~25.5

people convicted of sex crimes serve their entire sentence in protective custody, as putting them in gen pop means certain death.

It exist in almost all countries. Problem is people sometimes have a hard time understanding it because they let their feelings get in the way.
Again:
Shoot a corpse thinking it was alive: attempted murder
Shoot a corpse knowing it was dead: no attempted murder
The key concept here is subjective - not objective - knowledge, meaning what you actually knew, and not what you ought to have known

Same principle applies. You cannot 'intent' to harm someone who doesn't exist.

I always knew robert durst was in these threads.

yeah that was a bad exemple
if i blew up your house thinking you was in it
but you were elsewhere ?
is it attempted murder ?

stop baiting nigger

I gotta tell you something... and I'm just gonna tell you straight up...

>Shoot a corpse thinking it was alive: attempted murder

Show me one case of this?

user see If they exist in your mind, no matter how deranged it is - you have the required criminal intent/

why are they always creepier then "straight" pedos?

Well, you can. But first you have to argue there's an epidemic of hot jailbait looking for fat old men to invite to their houses for sex whenever their parents step out for any period of time.

In which case, said epidemic should be more cause for concern than, say, fat old men who only achieve any level of success because of decoy operations of the type hansen runs.

No, if I shoot chair thinking its person, its not attempted murder. Without a victim, certain crimes cannot be committed.

It's not exactly on all fours, but the principle remains
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas_(1962)

Yes. That would most definitely be attempted murder.

I'm against this shit and the examples you're giving are so bad it hurts.

independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/man-jailed-for-shooting-a-corpse-in-australian-supreme-court-trial-a6903126.html

metro.co.uk/2015/10/29/man-found-guilty-of-attempted-murder-of-a-corpse-5469480/

people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/puzz12.html

just google it dude

>But first you have to argue there's an epidemic of hot jailbait looking for fat old men to invite to their houses for sex whenever their parents step out for any period of time.

No you don't, burden of proof is not on defendant.

Despite all the readily available information you chose to cling to your simplistic (and wrong) view of a simple legal concept.
Really makes me think

>kinda felt bad for the Mets fan guy since he probably was a fucked up Vet
>find duct tape, a gun, a knife, condoms, and a camera in his trunk

Jesus fuck

Because its more wrong to make a hot little boy into a cockslut.

i'm not baiting, nigger. i'm wondering why the fuck it's OK to have thought police.

Not even remotely the same.

>No you don't, burden of proof is not on defendant.
I'll have to interject for a moment
Burden of proof is on the prosecution always.

that the same thought they were thinking they will commit a crime
so they're guilty of attempting to commit that crime

So you agree its the responsibility of the accusing entity to create a sound argument for the existence of even the barest potentiality of victims in the case of a crime.

Thank you. Its good we agree.

If you can't connect the dots then you're either retarded or just being stubborn
>dead woman
>raped
>still attempted rape
The example given before was
>dead person
>shot
>still attempted murder

But its correct. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Another point you keep skipping over is the utterly massive difference between saying "i wanna fuck ur 12 year old (boi)pussy" and blowing up a fucking house.

>Your argument is fundamentally flawed
>translation: your argument is not in line with mine
Pls go

Pedos keep bringing him snacks.

Notice all these crime have real world victims, not imaginary ones.

>Without a victim
There was an intended victim. If you thought the chair was a person, you had intended to shoot a person. That intent plus the act of firing upon the chair is attempted murder.

>Some of these guys are getting 20-50 years user.
Please don't lie on an anonymous anime message board.

>intended victim

Yes a real world one that actually exists.

The endstate of this argument is always how the law is presumed to be correct whenever it is being applied, no matter how insane the law is. Then how no one will ever update these laws to be less thought-crime-y because that would align them with "pedophiles."

hansen threads suck now
literally every thread it's just people arguing over if the show is legal or not
i just wanted to laugh at pedos and get comfy.

A dead person is not a person upon which you could commit a crime against. For all intents and purposes a dead person "does not exist." His property becomes his estate (which is a separate entity) and his body literally becomes chattel.

Blame the pedo defense force from the loli boards and lgbt

He's still handsome though

>Yes a real world one that actually exists.
see >literally every thread it's just people arguing over if the show is legal or not
It's mostly europeans using their understanding of their laws to try and explain why the show is illegal

Blame redditors for getting angry no crimes have been committed.

Though, attempting to try and convict someone for attempted murder on a chair wouldn't go very far.

Another point you like to skip over.

As this is the only legal statute where literally all that matters is what the perpetrator believed when they typed out words over the internet.

can't get comfy when the PIDF is out in full force crying entrapment

PIDF filth, fuck off back to /lgbt/, /mlp/ and Cred Forums.

>What underage children?
Here.
We.
Go.

haha stretching hard

>For all intents and purposes a dead person "does not exist." His property becomes his estate (which is a separate entity) and his body literally becomes chattel.

Desperately mixing criminal and civil law.

>sexting with a 19 year old woman is now a crime

Its wrong.

>Though, attempting to try and convict someone for attempted murder on a chair wouldn't go very far.
Yes, but that was the example given. You answer with what is given to you no matter how absurd.
>As this is the only legal statute
>legal statute
>legal
>statute
>legal law
>mfw
Anyway no matter how your feefees react to the laws these guys violated, it is still the law.

who's arguing it's entrapment you fucking retard? not a single person here has mentioned entrapment.

Hansen thinks hes doing something that matters, when the reality is the only reason people watched was the schadenfreude, so without the multiple, often overlapping catches and yakkety sax playing in the background with zoom-ins on all the literal retards (not to mention all the crying and genuine anguish these people seem to in) shits dry as fuck, and even the schadenfreuders lose interest.

Not to mention the legality/morality debate has been a cornerstone of this shit since the threads started.

I swear i thought she was 68

>mixing
More like connecting. The only difference is, in criminal law, as was explained ITT, intent matters. So if you commit a crime against a dead person thinking he was alive, with the intent of committing that crime against a person, you have committed a crime.

>etz illegals deal wit it

So you've backed out of the debate now that you cannot argue further on any line.

Your concession is noted.

>tfw you genuinely didn't mean to send penis pics

>it's like saying i'm going to kill you. so fucking what?
Which is illegal, you ignorant foreigner.

WHEN DOES THE NEW EPISODE COME ON TODAY

>I have no idea what entrapment means and haven't achieved any kind of adult moral reasoning

/entrapment/ general

>So you've backed out of the debate now that you cannot argue further on any line.
I don't need to argue about it because it is clear cut. There is evidence which satisfies the elements of the crime they were charged with. Application of law isn't deep as you make it out to be.

Saying "im going to kill you" doesn't put you on the "homicidal offender database" and essentially ruin your life.

You do, actually. Since we're not currently in a trial situation, no one is under any obligation to assume the law is correct.

For until the law is applied against you, its validity is always open to debate.

Literally who gives a fuck about legality and morality. Who cares if it is illegal, these guys are fucking creeps no matter what. It's hilarious what happens

That's why it was popular back then on here. We don't care (at least I don't care) about Hansen's crusade, but its pretty fucking hilarious watching this beta faggots get caught

Let's do this logically. Why is it illegal to intend/attempt to harm someone who does exist?
2 reasons
Because that person has the right, guaranteed by the state, to safety and without repurcussions for an attempted crime, one may continue to carry on attempting until they succeed
AND because the aggressor is considered a danger to society in this instance as they have shown the internal capability to carry out said crime despite the law. If one has that capacity, they are more likely to repeat offend

So if the person doesn't exist, while there's no singular person the state is protecting, the state still has a duty to protect society as a whole from someone who has shown they have the capacity to commit said crime. It is also the duty of a responsible state to punish those who do not show respect to the rule of law

/logic'd

>Saying "im going to kill you" doesn't put you on the "homicidal offender database" and essentially ruin your life.
Actually killing a person would not put you on any "homicidal offender database" in the first place. Protection of children is a special governmental interest which necessitates the registration of sex offenders.

If you were a bank robber looking for a fellow person to rob banks with on an online chat room and found someone and proceeded to tell them detailed plans of how you are going to rob a bank with them, tell them the exact equipment you plan on bringing, and then share stories/ pictures of other banks you have robbed plus your equipment for robbing banks and then proceeded to meet at the meet up place at the right time with the equipment you said you would bring for bank robbing only to find the person you said all of this too was an undercover cop would would be charged with attempted bank robbery and the robbery of other banks for the shit you said online.

I was speaking directly to that, yo.

Hansen doesn't understand the only reason he has a career is schadenfreude.

So he's putting out a drier, less retarded product, because he thinks it actually matters.

>foreigner
>saying things are illegal

nice bait faggot. free speech is protected by the first amendment, and is only illegal if there is a valid means to carry out the threat. if i said i'm going to fucking kill you, then it's meaningless. however, if i had a deadly weapon like a knife on hand, then that's different.

saying i'm going to kill you ONLINE means absolutely nothing. i bet you think anita sarkissian is a hero.

Again, you skip from "typing things onto the internet" to "stabbing someone 40 times with a spoon."

How can you people not see the massive disconnect between typing something out and doing something?

What if the 21 year old bank gave consent and was egging you on all along?

New episode when!?

>Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is [Online Solicitation of a Minor] Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha

I WANT PEDO SCUM TO FUCK OFF BACK TO /LGBT/, /MLP/, Cred Forums AND /JP/.

FUCK OFF PEDO FILTH

today, I don't know what time though

>no one is under any obligation to assume the law is correct.
Actually everyone is under that obligation. You actually get to challenge the law only in trial. The law is presumed correct until ruled otherwise by the highest court.
Its validity is always open to debate - in court. If you're talking about its wisdom - which can be debated elsewhere - then you would be correct. Validity implies it is not repugnant to the constitution under which it is operating.

>it's like saying it's ok to charge someone with attempted murder for simply saying i'm gonna kill u fgt online

Except they show up to commit the crime. So it's more like saying i'm gonna kill u fgt online and then showing up outside the guy's house at two in the morning with a claw hammer.

Which yeah, will get you charged.

they go to the house with the intent to have sex
suck hansens big dick fag

It depends on the state. Like, I think in Texas, it's illegal to do speak like that to kids online.

Nope. Validity of law only becomes unquestionable once you've been charged with a crime.

It did happen, but only once
youtube.com/watch?v=27-VPfFj7_k
leagle.com/decision/In CACO 20101124036/PEOPLE v. WEHRY

>physically shows up to commit crime
>same thing as talking about it online

you're not making a new argument here user. even in this hypothetical sting, the cops would go after and arrest the people who simply talk about robbing banks online, not just the ones who show up.

Not what they're being charged for. Try and keep up.

Getting them to the house with mango snapple and doritos is just to cement a link to the chat log.

>thought police

I've chuckling to myself ever time they've played that soundbite on the radio today, just like the paedos, get caught doing something naughty and it's suddenly the fault of the people who caught you.

>M...me..mean, tricksy Telegraph

Has the bank told you it's 21 or that it was 13? Are you a mentally functioning adult who can make decisions regardless of egging on from someone you belive to be at least 15 years your junior? Do you consider responses like "o rly?" and "idk I've never done that before" to be egging on?

Yes, they only conduct these stings in states where the law can specifically criminalize shit said online.

The guys on tcap and hvp physically show up to commit the crime as well.

>Validity of law only becomes unquestionable once you've been charged with a crime.
If this is your understanding of law then all your arguments concerning it are trash and should be regarded as such. A statute is either valid or invalid. There is no in between. An invalid law has no effect. A law which has no effect cannot be enforced. An unenforceable law cannot be used to charge someone of a crime. The validity of a law can only be challenged if one has the standing, such as when is someone is charged for violating it. Until then, a law is valid and is fully enforceable until someone challenges its validity in court.

>How old was she?
>It was a he.
Sorry, but that was gold.

>Predator: hey baby
>Any 13 year old girl on this planet: eww fuck off creep

>Predator: hey baby
>Decoy: hey boo

Wanted her to come out of the house 'for a drive' too.

Probably wouldn't have ever found the body if it hadn't been a sting.

It would be entrapment if they were cold calling pedos and asking them for sex

But the pedos are going into these chatrooms seeking 13 year olds. The Pedos make first contact. They intend to have lewd contact with what they think is an underage child. That is illegal.

Tell that to the judge.

I think this is the one time they actually caught a very dangerous predator.

Are you retarded? One of the predators outright said he did the same thing a few months before the show and raped a 15 year old.

who cares if its legal or not

pedos should hang

context?

>think

not a crime

It is helping though. Yeah it isn't efficient and it has entertainment value, but they are getting those guys off the streets, not to mention the possibility of deterring Pedos from trying to contact underage cunny due to sting operations getting much more attention because of Hansen

You cant know that theyre looking for 13 year olds.

They just dont tell the decoy to fuck off when age is mentioned.

One out of how many? How many of these guys would never leave their basement unless the decoy enticed them?

attempted murder via thought crime

someone arrest this man

Christ Almighty, you paedos are so fucking retarded and you're always ridiculously shit at arguments. In future, just don't post. Save everyone the embarrassment of having to read your shit.

I don't know what third world country you're from, but in the civilized West sending death threats will give you plenty of legal troubles.

No two conversations are the same, but alot of the time they get MORE lewd once age is mentioned.

If age is mentioned then they stop talking about that stuff, then it is a bit more hazy.

Yes it is, and inb4 "HURR THOUGHT POLICE". It's called intent. To the defendant's best knowledge the person was underage. They believed he/she was underage. The had the intent to preform sexual acts to someone who is underage.

England football team's new manager got recorded by journos discussing his willingness to accept bribes and circumvent Football Association rules for player transfers.

Got sacked and immediately called 'entrapment!'.

I dont know why people think anyone that quesyions how hanson and co operates is defending the actions of pedos.

>person

No child exist. Roleplaying is not illegal.

>pedophilia was created by feminists to put men in jail.
ok...

There cannot be a crime without a victim.

Reminder that Hansen is targeting thought crime.

...

You're right, it isn't. However the Defendant BELIEVES there is. That is what the prosecution needs to prove.

If the Defendant didn't believe that there was an actual child behind the chatroom, it would be much harder to convict him. But time and time again it shows that these guys believed that they were talking to a minor, they intended to have sex with the minor, and they acted on that intent.

It is similar to the different degrees of murder.

First degree murder is when you kill someone and there is proof you had the INTENT on killing them.

Boss Papi gets away with plowing minors

...

>It would be entrapment if they were cold calling pedos and asking them for sex
Not even.
Entrapment would be cops possing as terrorist and telling to rob a bank or they will kill your family. The cops removed your free choice. If cunny bait calls you for sex, you can still say no.

Its never shown that the predators initiate.

Longest chat logs ive ever seen cant be complete. They both talk like theyve talked before.

Its even worse if theyre actually using shit like tinder.

He's a Trump fan too.

fucking 13 yo's is legal in my country, hahahah eat your shit Chris Fagsen!

Who else here actually enjoys the entrapment debates?

Moving the goal post.
>it never happens
>it happens, but not enough for my taste

Requires victim. Otherwise it is thought crime, which is not illegal.

>First degree murder is when you kill someone and there is proof you had the INTENT on killing them.
>someone

Keyword

lol what

>sending 100 innocents down is ok if we nail one criminal

Why is this show such a popular topic on Cred Forums?

Is it because half of you have considered doing what the guys caught in it do and it makes you nervous?
Or what?

>Its never shown that the predators initiate.
They were clear, especially after the first few investigations, that the decoys do not initiate. If you watch the specials one of the decoys said their machines literally crash due to the number of thirsty dudes messaging them.
>he hasn't pretended to be a gril in iRC
I know it's anecdotal but I can see a flood of thirsty dudes crashing your machine especially if you use resource-intensive clients such as Yahoo Chat (which opens new chat windows every time a new conversation starts)

A few children getting raped is the price to pay for my freedom to cruise for cunny online.

I just hate the virtue signallers who kiss Hansen's ass for ruining lives.

It's because it's some of the greatest TV ever made.

Sup Reddit.

>Why is this show such a popular topic on Cred Forums?
it was a popular topic on Cred Forums when the original show was still airing. Apparently that carried over when Cred Forums was later made and experienced a resurgence when HvP was released.

It's like the Scoobie-Doo defense.
And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for Chris Hansen and the criminalization of pedophilia.

You are going in circles. Yes there technically is no victim, but the fact there was an intent to make a victim is what they get put in jail for.

That is why (I think) they get less than they would have if they were actually caught in the act. The intent is the key.

A thought crime would be them thinking
>Hm I wish I could fuck a 13 year old right now, oh well
and then nothing else happening.

>They were clear, especially after the first few investigations, that the decoys do not initiate

Well gee I will just take their word for it. Not like they are morally dubious and entrapping innocent men, ruining their lives for a stupid tv show. Paragons of virtue that should be trusted without question.

>Catch Pedos right before the act
>WAHH THEY ARE RUINING LIVES

Chris Hansen is an accomplice for every Predator he catches. He actively assists in the crime of solicitation of a minor by creating the decoy.

What act? Where is the child?

You've posted this exact post before. I recognise this post. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>drive drunk
>kill nobody
>get arrested
THIS IS THOUGHT CRIME!
(paraphrased from the Libertarian website Lew Rockwell, srly)

Looks like Hansen is trying to force choke this fat fuck

intent needs to be made against an actual person

The life ruining part is that you have your current address public and everyone can look them up for life in america

Isn't the purpose of prison, or the end goal, to bring people back into society?

If so, why do this? Some guy might've been out of prison for 20 years and did nothing since, yet he will still never live a normal life, get a job or anything else.

Might as well just kill them then. What's the point.

Not sure if satire...

>Isn't the purpose of prison, or the end goal, to bring people back into society?
No. It never has been, no matter what they tell you.

>Paragons of virtue that should be trusted without question.
nobody is calling them as such. When we say Chris Handsome is a hero and a national treasure, we mean that he serves a noble purpose (prevents children from getting diddled) while we get to see people's lives ruined. Watching people get rekt is gr8 but it does tug on your conscience. Watching people who you think deserves it get rekt is the cleanest and purest of pleasures and Chris Handsome is a hero and a national treasure because of that.

You are wrong, I typed it then for the first time. You are going mental.

You might just be retarded then.
Well, you're American, so that was a given I guess.

>their machines literally crash due to the number of thirsty dudes messaging them.
A few years ago a troll gave my AIM contact to a pedo chat and I got so flooded I had to shut down AIM for a while.

I could swear I've read that exact same post in these threads before. Right down to the pathetic indignant "NO I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RAPE KIDS WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT!" tone. Got massive deja vu from your shit post.

He actually amps up child molesters. The ones that the decoy gets hot and horny but dont show up, go off and fuck other real kids.

>everyone who thinks Hansen's methods are dubious wants to rape kids

Fuck you

>You're retarded because prison isn't for rehabilitation
Huh? Do you even understand English?

>you're American
Way to make an ass of yourself there.

Care to embarrass yourself some more with baseless assumptions or are you done for the day?

>(prevents children from getting diddled)
Does he, though?

What he does is like having a decoy walk around a park in front of a person, purposely drop some money and then, if the person takes it for himself, catch him and go "ha, we got you, thief!"

What exactly do you have to live for if you're cruising for cunny in the first place? And if you're retarded enough to take the bait?

I can't find the case right now but it's pretty famous and ridiculously relevant for anyone claiming 'thougt-crime' or the impossibility-defense

So there was a case, I can't remember if it was the us or uk, involving two soldiers
>on shore-leave
>drinking at a bar
>women comes up and is clearly flirting with one of them
>he buys her drinks
>she gets drunk
>she asks one of the soldiers to take her home
>soldier agrees
>him and his mate help her into one of their cars
>she passes out on the drive
>the soldier in the back notices and decides to rape her
>the other soldier has a go afterwards
>at some point they realise she's actually died somehow and hide the body

Upon arrest and charges, it's revealed that the women died when she passed out. The soldier's defense is therefore that they couldn't have raped her since she was dead
They were over-ruled and sentenced guilty to rape among other things

>tldr; the law still punishes you even if you're too stupid to properly break it

Yeah, you clearly do want to rape children. You think men who have arrived to rape 13 year olds are "innocent".

No, it's not, because one of those isn't a crime and the other one is raping a child.

Probably the best bust so far, equal parts genuinely creepy and hilarious

posted famalamb

But it's true. Rehabilitation is 100% the goal of prison for anyone already in there.

If someone is deemed so dangerous that they can never again be released, then those people shouldn't be kept in prison to begin with. Just execute them.

I'm aware that your dumbass country has for-profit private prisons, which is a hilarious concept to begin with.

This. You can not even come close to hurting someone and still be charged with attempted murder.

It 100% isn't. Maybe in Norway, but pretty much nowhere else on the planet is prison actually used to rehabilitate.

>Gets told explicitly that I'm not American
>proceeds to attack me as an American anyway
Are you trying to be retarded or does this come naturally to you?

I knew you were a foreigner.

Real world victim, nothing like this.

>It 100% isn't. Maybe in Norway, but pretty much nowhere else on the planet is prison actually used to rehabilitate.

Except it is.
No point continuing this discussion with you, sorry. I'm out.

>IT IS IT IS IT IS IT IS IT IS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>runs away
kek. Well, I'm convinced.

>someone

someone that actually exists

>You win this round Hansen however I shall be the one going to the beach by the end of all this

There are better ways to make use of my spare time than to argue with a two-digit IQ guy on Cred Forums

ahh, cheers man, yeah i got a few of the minor details wrong

PUT THAT IN THE FRIDGE!

No. As has already been stated, you can be charged for attempted murder of a corpse.

>I'M DONE REEEEEEEEEEE
>Comes back
Kek. Do you get off on being embarrassed or something?

No it doesn't.

why does that someone's existence matter?
you accept that the impossibility defense isn't a valid defense right? so why does the victim need to exist?

>wrestlingdudeeasttn (10/15/07 7:37:20 PM): i hait forgners

>Foreigners defending Pedos in Hansen threads

Pottery

>murder of a corpse

Still a person, an actual victim.

>NECROPHILIA IS A THOUGHT CRIME YOU CAN'T RAPE A NON PERSON I AM BEING PERSECUTED!!!

Well no, it's not a victim. A corpse can't be a victim of murder because it's a corpse, you dunce.

>why does that someone's existence matter?

Idiot

>BASED HANSEN
>ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A CHILD RAPIST
>IS MY VIRTUE SIGNALLED YET

It's some retard in the thread (probably a fucking European) who thinks he is clever by posting "hurr need a real person" which shows he has no understanding of the law whatsoever or that he is from a shithole nation

I'd say you just went full retard, but you're so beyond that point.

You are the dunce, you just claim it can be victim.

>IS MY VIRTUE SIGNALLED YET
aware me on this phrase

but attempted murder is a victimless crime, it's the intent that is punished, not the result since obviously there is none, else it wouldn't be attempted

But the most progressive systems don't execute irredeemable criminals as this retard is suggesting.

No there isn't.

Are you retarded? I'm curious. Are you intentionally ignoring what's being said and making up your own reality or can you genuinely not grasp this?

That's my point. A crime doesn't always need a victim.

He is correct that corpse cannot be a victim, IF he thinks that corpse is a corpse and not a real human bean who is alive.

I'm trying to! I can't sit!

Yup, although it was only that heavy a sentence due to a three strikes law in CA

The corpse is the victim, dummy.

A copse can't be a victim of murder.

>tfw no qt decoy gf

instagram.com/casey_mauro/?hl=en

>Not watching it to laugh at the Pedos getting caught

Everyone ITT needs to calm down and just laugh. The original purpose of the show was to laugh at the spaghetti that was dropped

most progressive systems do not kill their irredeemable criminals because they have the luxury to not do so, since they are mostly small countries having small populations which in turn results in a smaller total number of inmates. Big countries (4u) have a bigger pool to contend with and will have a bigger resulting number of inmates. They have to make room

>Everyone is rotten like me.

So if my hand falls asleep and I masturbate, I can be charged with rape?

>Just think of the inanimate objects that are no longer sending synaptic signals!

Not him but did you read the thread? Here I posted it again Criminal law is largely about intent. Intent is subjective, meaning it is determined largely by what the defendant actually knows.

You're aware that I've been agreeing with that sentiment the entire time, right? My point is that crime doesn't require a victim, like the paedo claims.

>complains about thought police and fascism
>supports the death penalty
East European?

But the dead corpses was a real person and does actually exist.

Nothing like a fictional charter that doesn't exist and never has existed.

So if I eat a strawberry is that attempted murder? Explain that.

I wasn't any of the anons complaining about those things. And no.

>crime doesn't require a victim

Not all crimes but these specific crimes absolutely do.

>the defendant must show...

toplel, do we live in the same country?

But we can also laugh at the pedos who are emotionally projecting on the spaghetti droppers.

Holy shit you are retarded beyond help

FOR THE FINAL TIME: THEY WERE CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY HAD THE INTENT ON RAPING WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS AN UNCONSCIOUS GIRL. JUST LIKE IN THE SHOW THEY HAVE THE INTENT OF HAVING SEX WITH A CHILD. WHETHER SAID CHILD OR PERSON EXISTS/ IS ALIVE DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY DEFENDANT BELIEVES THEY ARE ALIVE, KNOWS THEY ARE COMMITTING SEND CRIME, AND INTEND TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT IF THEY ARE NOT CAUGHT.

For your retarded example: It is clear your hand is not a person so no you cannot be charged with rape. IF it could be proven you did think your hand is a person, you will be thrown into an asylum for insanity.

Fucking Europeans jesus christ.

>I have better shit to do.
>Still here.

*THE DEFENDANT
*SAID CRIME

Some corrections

>INTENT

against a real person

i can try to kill homer simpson but it will never intent/attempted murder

A dead person by itself does not exist in the legal sense. It's literally just a piece of rotting corpse. It's a chattel that can be traded (albeit with some heavy restrictions because of health concerns and muh morals)
If there is intent to do something to the corpse which the defendant thought was an actual person. he can attempt to commit crimes against that "person." It is the intent of the person committing the crime which determines the "existence" of the person who is actually a corpse.
Same concept applies to the decoys. Though they might be adults, that the defendant thought they were kids is sufficient intent to convict them of a crime/attempted crime.

>MUH THOUGHT CRIMES!!!
lol

>i can try to kill homer simpson but it will never intent/attempted murder
but see this will be judged according to you. If you thought that homer simpson was a real life human bean then you can be convicted of attempted murder. Again it is subjective as to what the defendant knew/thought he knew. Those thirsty niggas thought that they were going to get some underaged girl/boypucci

>Same concept applies to the decoys.

No it doesn't.

All these crimes against corpses, the people were alive or thought be alive at time of crimes. Actual real world people, a deceased person is still a person.

That is because Homer will never be real and it is impossible to prove that you would think he is real

It is easily proven though that they thought that girl was alive or even easier: that these pedos had the intent of having sex with kids.

Again, you are wrong about the fact the person not actually existing/ being alive matters. Stop with the ridiculous metaphors

>IF it could be proven you did think your hand is a person

So what you are saying is.. a Vagina is not a person, so masturbating with a vagina is not rape? This clears up so many things for me.

I like it when he came out in the Boondocks

Filename

Hansen bootlickers taking a beating in this thread.

Its a fictional character and no one will ever be convicted of intent/attempted murder of homer simpson. Exactly like the fictional children in this show.

>If you thought
OBJECTION, Though crime in action

That the targets believed they were minors is enough.
>That is because Homer will never be real and it is impossible to prove that you would think he is real
Ok not him but it can be proven both ways. You can't read a defendant's mind but you can show his belief or lack thereof through other things.

I take it you've never seen her Reddit AMA then?

>That is because Homer will never be real

Just like the imaginary decoys in this show.

No, all that took place was roleplay between two adults.

>Its a fictional character
again, if it is proven that, based on your acts, you somehow thought homer simpson was a real person, then you can be convicted of attempted murder of (A) homer simpson. If you prove that the homer simpson you were referring to was the yellow faggot, then there is no attempted murder.

it takes it out of thought crime once the elements of overt acts tending to aid in and facilitate the commission of the crime is proven.

Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions

>Ok not him but it can be proven both ways. You can't read a defendant's mind but you can show his belief or lack thereof through other things.

That is up to the prosecution to do. That is the point of having a justice system and the courts. So you cannot be put away just for thinking something, like people in the thread claim.

A prosecutor is going to have a really hard (impossible) time proving that you believed Homer existed, and you wanted him dead, and you tried to kill him. What would realistically happen is that if you acted out trying to kill homer, you would be convicted of insanity if the prosecution can show you were actually serious and not just fucking around.

It is extremely easy for the prosecution to show that these pedos intended on having sex with kids. Everything is there to prove that they believed they were on their way to get some underage poon when they go to the kids' houses

The law is the law. Whether that law makes sense is another discussion.

That said, do you really not think that the "people" that are caught on these shows deserve to go down? They believed they were talking to a child. They intended those dirty texts and dick pics to go to a child. They intended to show up at a child's house to have sex with them. If the decoy was a real child, it would have happened. Unless you're autistic, it's obvious that this is a big problem.

>No, all that took place was roleplay between two adults.
the statutes they were charged with prohibits solicitation of sex from a minor and transmitting pornographic materials to a minor. It doesn't matter what they characterized that exchange as. If there was solicitation for sex with a minor (hey bb I wanna blank your blank, I will be coming over to blank your blank and also a cat) the crime was committed. When they transmit their benis, the crime was committed.
>two adults
The targets believed the decoys were minors. We've been over this and the concept of subjective knowledge constituting intent.

true, but the fact remains that just because you said you wanted to kill someone named after a famous fictional character, it doesn't make it automatically a legal impossibility.

Homer Simpson IS a fiction character. Just like the decoy IS a fiction character.

>If you prove

Defendant doesn't have to prove anything.

Nice mental gymnastics faggot

Homer will never exist and to believe you are going to kill him is insanity

Thirteen Year olds do exist and it happens often enough that the fact they fell for decoys wouldn't mean the defendant is insane. Just a pervert

>solicitation of sex from a minor
>transmitting pornographic materials to a minor

No minor, no crime.

>Homer Simpson IS a fiction character.
There is still the possibility that "Homer Simpson" could be just a nickname you have given your target. The decoy is not fictional. That they were actually adults do not make them fictional.
>If you prove
I will be more accurate in the next posts

Jesus Christ you people are dense

If I have to explain to you the difference between masturbating with your hand and having sex with a vagina it is no wonder you faggots defend these Pedos.

Fuck Cred Forums

>Nice mental gymnastics faggot

Cunny's lusting after old dudes will never exist and to believe you are going to fuck them is insanity

Middle aged man that likes beer do exist.

>No minor, no crime.
The existence of the minor is determined by what the defendant believed. If the defendant believed he was talking to a minor, despite the minor being an actual adult, there was still a crime committed. One of the targets from the earlier episodes actually got away (it's on the specials, not on the regular episodes) because when he arrived he kept on repeating "you're 18 right" over and over again. This confounded the decoy and eventually they gave up and Hanson came out. The fact that he was asking the question shows that he had doubts on his mind about the minority of the person he is about to have sex with.

That hypothetical is inane.

> The decoy is not fictional.

No child exist.

>Cunny's lusting after old dudes will never exist
>mfw 32 year old with 18 y.o. gf

Yes they do. Vulnerable teenagers are a dime a dozen.

>when someone without a basic understanding of law tries to talk law
Just stick with the morality argument okay kid? :^)
>No child exist.
see

>solicitation of sex from a minor
>transmitting pornographic materials to a minor

These crimes require a minor. Sending pron to another adult is not a crime. Google the crimes and read the requirements.

HEY! You just said a hand is not a person, so what is more personable about a vagina than a hand? I never said the vagina was attached, that's on you pal.

>muh thought crime

She went from looking 15 years old to 43 in 10 years

The white women aging meme is real. Luckily I'm male and use retinol face cream every day

>another "Cred Forums defends actual child predators" thread

>These crimes require a minor
see

>another "cucks support ruining lives for entertainment when no crime was committed" thread

So if the decoy was actually a real kid, and the guy actually had sex with that kid, it's fine because he wasn't caught?

ew she's all like old and stuff

she wanted the d when she was 15