Hansen vs Predator episode 5 came out last night

>texting or talking about yoga with minors is illegal
what did he mean by this?

This is why we have vigilante's.

>CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT RISK OF INJURY TO A MINOR
I don't get it can someone explain?

He calculated his every move, beforehand. That's a man you want to hire.

he wasn't alone

I want to fuck that decoy so badly.

is this show real or scripted?
am i really watching someone's life crumble away?
what do they charge them with if they haven't actually done anything?

If you pay attention, on the next episode preview you can see they are using the 30 year old "mommy and daddy"decoy again

isn't this false imprisonment?

because they're not the brightest of people. Technically they waived the rights to show their face, unless there's some rule I don't know about.

supposed to be real. I can't imagine someone willing to get paid to be a pedo on national tv
yes, but then again, it was crumbling way before they got caught.
They usually get charged with some kind of intent and corruption of minor bullshit stuff. The ones who send nudes usually get it worse.

>is this show real or scripted?
real
>am i really watching someone's life crumble away?
yes
>what do they charge them with if they haven't actually done anything?
see also other stuff like that they mention it at the end of every episode

>be 25 year old male
>about to meet 13 year old boy
>arrive
>he looks fifteen years older than you

>Math teacher
>32 + 13 equals trouble
>Obsessed with pizza
>DUDE WEED LMAO

We're reaching levels of /scitv/ that we thought were not even possible

>private tutor
>says on his public profiles he smokes weed

>kid predator
>making smart decisions ever

DUDE HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG JUST SMOKING WEED WITH A MINOR AND TALK YOGA WHATS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?

>didn't say anything lewd to her

WEAK

He didn't even bring cannabis with him

Can someone link all the previous HvP episodes?

um...how can the police/hansen get away with this shit? what they're doing isn't any better than what he's allegedly doing, taking advantage of people and wrecking their lives.

How come people can't get their face blurred on this show?

>um...how can the police/hansen get away with this shit? what they're doing isn't any better than what he's allegedly doing, taking advantage of people and wrecking their lives.
taking advantage of a kid to have sex with them is not on the same level of luring out a predator. Their methods are questionable, but in the end, the guys take the final steps to get caught

> How come people can't get their face blurred on this show?
unless there's some law they're riding hard, the guys sign release forms.

He got charged with a felony for something he didn't fucking do.

Did you notice that interrogator trying to get buddy buddy with him? That guy should have hired a lawyer

What hook-up app are they using to find predators?

nah. I've seen episodes where guys will cover their faces and lift their shirts over their heads to avoid being seen. Either there's a law they're riding or the police are threatening to throw the book at him if he doesn't sign it.

even monsters should have rights. this is the grossest abuse of power I've ever seen

facebook

ugh, pedos don't get to bring friends

Sounds like they charged him with the crime of intending to physically harm a child.

they had absolutely nothing on him, they're fucking CROOKS

GROSS ABUSE OF POWER

>You're fucking right I'm mad right now.

Why don't you find a country that has laws based on your feels and move there then, faggot?

I believe they only show your face if you get convicted.

Cred Forums's /soc/

>I believe they only show your face if you get convicted.
I doubt it. Most likely they're pressured into signing a release. They don't seem like the brightest people on earth.

They always get convicted through something insanely arbitrary

>Not lawyering up
>Pleasing guilty to that shit

If he had a competent lawyer the dude would have slipped out and cucked Hansen Scott free

There's nothing to prosecute him om. Yeah, we all clearly know what was happening, but the court is blind.

>what do they charge them with

Just trying to meet up with a kid is a crime in the U.S.

>We caught you trying to fuck a kid. Can please sign this long winded release form so we can show you on TV and tell everyone how you tried to fuck kids

S-sure... said literally no one

>what they're doing isn't any better than what he's allegedly doing, taking advantage of people and wrecking their lives.
They could, you know, not send nude pictures to underage kids and try to fuck them? That's really the only reason why the end up on tv in the first place. They go out of their way to drive to some stranger's house to take advantage of a little kid.

no normal rational person just "meets up with a kid"

are you retarded? Do you even know what the cops do to them? They sit them in a chair for hours and drill the shit out of them. High pressure stress trying to get them to say stupid shit. Getting them to sign the release is probably the easiest part of their job considering most of these guys are literal retards.

>high-dollar tutor
>obsessed with pizza
>tokes often
>looks human
Am I really meant to hate this guy?

The problem lies in the fact that there is actually no kid involved. It's just adults trying to trick pedos into thinking they're reeling in a kid to meet IRL.

On one hand, these pedos are actively trying to meet up with kids. But on the other hand, there are no kids involved actually, so the pedos weren't really harming a kid, even if they thought they were.

The question becomes is attempting to do something illegal a crime even if they really weren't doing anything illegal in the process of trying to do something illegal?

They don't have to say a single word though do they? Who cares how ling they're drilling them if you stay silent.

I'm pretty sure they're allowed to show their faces because they're technically trespassing on private property or something. Also what episode had the mommy and daddy guy?

First of all, there are plenty of retarded adults that shouldn't be having sex, so I don't know why kids over 15 can't fuck whoever they want.

Second of all he didn't send any nude photos and the MOST incriminating shit they had against him was him asking her about her skills in the downward dog position

>invites stranger into home
>stranger is now trespassing

are you feeling ok?

>The question becomes is attempting to do something illegal a crime even if they really weren't doing anything illegal in the process of trying to do something illegal?
I think that falls under conspiracy in America.

that's why they really only get charged with intent.

you're right, they don't. But like I said, they're literal retards and fess up to everything. They can probably even pressure them into confessing to a murder.

doesn't work that way.

What do you think sting operations are?

People get arrested trying to sell drugs to cops without actually selling the drugs to a civillian. It's why most men in the show are charged with "intent to something," which is the illegal part.

There is no problem -- as far as the predator's mind goes, they really ARE talking to a 13-year old, and they really ARE going to have sex with a 13-year old, so intent to commit the crime is clear.

are YOU retarded? If they are detained they are supposed to given their Miranda rights, with the whole "you have a right to remain silent" thing. If the pedos decide to keep talking after that, then yes they are ratarded. But if the cops did what you say they did it would be a clear violation of the bill of rights and the perps would go free

just me or is the volume too low? I got youtube and my pc volume maxed out.

It was boring as fuck,the guy went uncharged.
I guess its ok to rape people if you are a math theacher

>If they are detained they are supposed to given their Miranda rights, with the whole "you have a right to remain silent" thing. If the pedos decide to keep talking after that, then yes they are ratarded. But if the cops did what you say they did it would be a clear violation of the bill of rights and the perps would go free
so you are retarded. They even include the clips of the cops drilling them and the retards waiving their right to remain silent. THEY ARE ALL LITERAL RETARDS AND TALK. No one is violating their rights except themselves.

The miranda rights are a meme anyway, cops don't need to read that shit, and it doesn't invalidate anything the criminals did if they don't.

The police have a number of tactics to get these people to talk. Point of fact is, they're gonna charge them with whatever they fucking want. judges are in their back pocket anyway, and judges are just itching to throw away the key since it means their budget will increase next year

the whole justice system is really unjust

>Math tutor
More like meth tutor.
Am I right guys?
RIGHT GUYZ?

....RIGHT?!

Plenty of people on the show have sent dick pics to girls who thought they were 13. Him showing up to a house after he had a conversation with a 13 year old girl about having sex with her shows intent to have sex with a minor. 15-year-olds having sex with 30-year-olds is not universally preferable behavior.

but 13 year olds want 37 year olds, not that the guys on the show look like this though lmao

yeah, but they're also mentally underdeveloped and essentially functioning retards.

>"a 13 who can't make those decisions and judgments on their own"

This meme needs to stop.

You dont give a 13 year old a phone either

>mentally underdeveloped and essentially functioning retards
so just like the guys on the show then lmao?

no, they're mentally fully developed and literal retards.

You can't mentally developed and be a literal retard, retard.

Nope, he never talked about having sex with her. He vaguely alluded to it, at best.

not really surprised there are literal retards in here.

I believe the felony for was trying to get her to smoke weed with him (he could've bought some with her after coming over and he said he would smoke with her)

This, he was completely right in what he was doing. Until the cops arrest you and read miranda rights, DENY DENY DENY! Then shut the fug up until your lawyer arrives. Cops are power tripping assholes if they even suspect you of doing something bad. They will lie and manipulate you into incriminating yourself by giving you false promises of "going easy on you for complying" That one gay retard literally traded years of his life away for chinese take out

>gay retard traded years of his life away for chinese take out
lmfao, what?

Still he was essentially presented as a molester and predator and put on TV. Why is this legal? Could he sue them? He should imo.

why do they always call it "the website"?
when I talk to someone about facebook, I say facebook. Not "hey did you see my status on the blue site"

>it's a "cunnyposters don't understand intent" thread

>Still he was essentially presented as a molester and predator and put on TV.
because he essentially was. Just because he was smarter than the rest about it doesn't mean he's not.
>Why is this legal?
they baited him into going to the house. He got dressed, got in a car, and did it himself.
>Could he sue them? He should imo.
it wouldn't work out well for him.

because they don't want facebook hounding them. Last thing facebook wants is for a show about predators using their services to lure little kids to call them out.

Why would anyone in their right mind use a service that they now know has loli honeypots waiting for them?

>in their right mind
I guess I answered my question.

crimewatchdaily.com/videos/0-0s1fgyos/

its in part 3 of this episode

lol do they really use facebook? how do the creeps even find the baits? like groups or what?

I don't use facebook but I wouldn't be surprised if the cops throw a wide net and send out messages hoping for responses and these retards took the bait.

If I was one of those desperate degenerates I would bring Chris Hansen's photograph in my pocket and "to catch a predator" on DVD in my car. If I ever got caught by him or anyone, I would act hype as fuck and say that I did it because I am huge fan and wanted to be on TV.

Good luck proving intend to me, mr. policemen.

>If you didnt want to have sex with this 13yo why did you sent this?
I had to send this to that predator watchdog lady so I could meet with Chris

>Do you have condoms on you?
Of course I have condoms on me, in case I and Christ hit it off

>You realize how this looks, right?
It had to look like this if I wanted to meet you

Also how come people dont just say "Oh fuck, I thought she was 18, not 13. I guess I have misread, I hate when this happens?". Then act like you came to fuck her.

daaaammmn 7 years and he didn't even get to fuck her?

So, if you say you planned on having sex with a minor, it's attempted minor sex fuck charges.

But, if you don't say you planned on having sex with a minor, but they suspect you did, then it's intent to cause harm to a minor? What??!!

Even if there is no child involved you can (not will, can) be found guilty as long as the prosecution can show that you attempted to engage in sexual acts with a person that you thought was below the legal age.

>What??!!
It's more so that they knew they didn't have the evidence to prove that he was attempting solicitation so they aimed to hit him a charge that they could successfully prosecute him for.

in most cases the pedos send incriminating messages and pictures. Even if they don't, the fact that they went to the minor's house shows intent.

this pic is like a super meme.
am i gonna die?

>But how did you know this girl you're talking online was a decoy and she was working for our show?
shi-

I'm just saying there's no grounds for such a charge whatsoever. What did the guy really do, other than be in the same room with an alleged 13 year old alone? He didn't even say he wanted to have sex or anything, and barely alluded anything sexual at all.

I'm not defending pedos, and I'm not defending this douchebag, but godammnit it's not right in this case. It totally goes against what I think Murica should be about. But whatever.

So why didn't Michael Jackson get charged with intent? Dude had kids sleeping in his bed and he gets off scott free. This bald pothead walks into the house of someone who he thinks is 13 and gets completely buttfucked by the law

>super meme

it's called a daring synthesis you dip

>What did the guy really do
for what reason does a grown man ever have to go visit a strange 13 year old he corresponded with online?

he is like Cred Forums the guy

>But how did you know this girl you're talking online was a decoy and she was working for our show?
Oh please, I know when I am talking to that lovely lady, and when I am talking to some kid. Come on. It was clear to me after 5 minutes.

Just too easy.

a. he was RICH and famous
b. he had competent lawyers
c. the parents brought the kids to his house

My guess is that it's the weed rather than sex.

Being a creep alone isn't enough to get you convicted, that's ridiculous.

is he perhaps, dare i say it, our guy?

They can't fucking prrroooovvvveee that

that decoy tho

You have no expectation of privacy unless you are on your own property in most states. If you come to my house (or in this case a house I am renting) I can videotape your every move because you're on my property. Believe me none of them sign anything.

>Being a creep alone isn't enough to get you convicted, that's ridiculous.
convicted of intent? sure it is.

prove what? That he went to go visit a strange 13 year old? sure they can. And they did, on tape.

Intent to do what?

youtube.com/watch?v=dzafAPRc9Rc

>our next predator goes by the screen name BigGuy4U. he asks our decoy lewd questions like "if I BLANK that BLANK would you die?" he tells our decoy that he is a CIA agent who has just returned from a dangerous mission in the Uzbek Skarch, but inquiries at the agency reveal that he has never worked there.

This is modern America. Future police state safe space. You can be sent to jail for sneezing on baby. We also have more people in jail then the "oppressive" PRC.

Decoys never make the first move. They wait for someone to start talking dirty or send a dick pick. So you'd have to bug random girls before one of them replies and you know it's a decoy. In other words, by the time you realize it's a decoy for sure, the crime is already commited.

exactly

can you give me an instance when it would be normal for a complete stranger to meet a 13 year old alone at their house?

Normal? No. But is it illegal? Not necessarily.

thus intent. You can't prove there was no intent. The act of actually going to their house is the intent.

See .

You are so unbelievably right my friend

>chris hansen looks so fucked up that not even predators recognise their archnemesis

kek

commit risk of injury to a minor

>That he went to go visit a strange 13 year old
And that is illegal how?

Why do you say that?

I don't get how you couldn't recognise him, his voice is exactly the same and for all intents and purposes he looks the same.

because he wasn't going there to brush her hair and watch youtube videos

coupled with some questionable online chats, sure.

How do you know?

because even if he was, he shouldn't have been.

That doesn't make it illegal.

He aged quite well desu.

ENOUGH

Still not funny, you meme spewing faggot. No wonder you're a virgin.

>Could he sue them?
They made it clear that he only said he wanted to smoke weed with a 13 year old, and other than Hansen asking the police chief if he thought the dude was there for more than pot, they never implied he wanted sex. I don't think he'd have much of a case.

That dude sounds exactly like Bobby Moynihan from Bro Rape youtube.com/watch?v=3zvTRQr7ns8#t=3m04s

kek

>and the MOST incriminating shit they had against him was him asking her about her skills in the downward dog position

Which is complete bullshit. The only thing I know about yoga is there is a pose called downward dog and there's such a thing as hot yoga where people go into a sauna and do yoga or something. Prior to this video I had no idea what downward dog was. If you're any kind of person capable of saying more than yes or no and someone brings up yoga, it is virtually impossible to respond in a way that is completely innuendo-free. I know "entrapment" gets thrown around a lot in these threads but the decoy knew exactly what they were doing when they mentioned yoga.

>coupled with some questionable online chats
I thought he didn't incriminate him or say something problematic during these chats

>32 + 13 equals trouble
>irish + british equals trouble
>jew + christian equals trouble
>black + white equals trouble

how offensivfe.

>really makes you think

t. pedophile.

>how offensivfe
yefs

Even if you ignore the questionable ethics of the sting operation itself. How can you justify filming it? You're just ensuring these people will never be rehabilitated into society

Might as well just shoot them in the face when they walk in

This is from someone who hates pedos

that's where the questionable part comes in.

>Might as well just shoot them in the face when they walk in

that would be alright too, as long as they still film it and post it on the internet

how the fuck did this nigga get his show back?

Someone should make a show where they bait pedos into coming to their house.
Then when the pedo comes in the person making this show literally nails them in the middle of the forehead all on camera.

I fully agree with this post.

what part is surprising?

>Someone should make a show where they bait pedos into coming to their house.

All the good pedos never fall for this shit.

They infiltrate from weak points like school or family; not fucking honey pots.

Hansen pulls it off.
Why couldn't someone else do it?

because he's not getting good pedos, he's getting retards that clearly look like pedos. The good ones you would never look at them and go "yeah, that's a pedo"

Who cares?
They're getting shot in the face.
That was the whole point of what that original poster was talking about.

problem with this show is that they're luring the guys in, there isn't a 13 year old

it's a 30+ year old woman or man, they aren't acting like a 13 year old on the internet either, they're having long conversations with these guys for months manipulating them into coming

>muh entrapment

hansen/PJ/tetradcore isn't going after pedophiles at all. He's/they're going after desperate losers hunting for jailbait.

Jailbait is classified as (close to) fully developed boys/girls who are not only more than physically capable of having and enjoying sex, but also understand what sex is, what sex means, and want to have sex with (attractive) older men.

Then hansen/PJ/tetradcore create a scenario, completely divorced from reality, where these completely disgusting losers were able to talk a piece of fine jailbait into inviting them to it's house for the purpose of sex.

So, yea, this shit kinda needs a disclaimer saying "no pedophiles were prosecuted as a result of anything on this show."

This has probably been asked a billion times, but how are they allowed to show the footage of these people? Are they dumb enough to somehow consent to it?

>Are they dumb enough to somehow consent to it?
yes. At the very least they are pressured into signing a release form when they're getting interrogated by the cops. They could very well say no and not sign the forms, but you've seen that they are all literally retarded.

>im Chris Hanson
>No You're not
Kek

What the fuck? Did they seriously bust a guy for smoking weed? They busted a guy who didn't even make ANY sexual gesture whatsoever?

What the fuck Chris?

Was this the 2nd most smartest pedo after the "What? No way!" dude. The way he checked out the house before speaking much to the girl was operator as fuck.

>t-those p-poor pedos :(((((
>wont somebody think of the pedos :,((((((

You're fucking stupid.

Because hansen and crew own/rent/lease the property where the sting is taking place, they can film whatever they want. You give up all rights to your appearance once you step on someone else's property. Otherwise security camera footage would be useless in all cases.

The reason COPS and other fun shows have problems with this is they're always on public property or someone else's property. So they have no rights to film anyone.

its one of those bullshit statues that only come up in plea deals.

The likely threatened to go full child rapists on him in trial, and his lawyer would have the wonderful job of defending a "pedophile."

They film pervs in public, too

lol, how can you be so wrong?

>" b-but they never could have actually fucked a kid so whats the problem with trying fuck a kid"
every thread without fail

it doesn't change the fact that what they did was illegal and they all knew it going in

to draw a bit of a parallel it's like saying "but dude that space was empty and it was a great place to park my car" for getting a ticket in a no parking area

i do agree that filming and broadcasting the entire process (like the vancouver police do with bait cars) is entering a moral gray area as the vast majority of criminals do not receive exposure beyond local newspaper blips, however i enjoy the show so i'm not complaining

>illegal

We're talking about a series of statutes that require zero quantification of intent.

You realize these shows are from the USA, right?

DUDE

are you planning on meeting minors online and then visiting them at their home? no? then don't worry about it.

>i have no problem with criminal statutes that require zero quantification of criminality because they don't currently affect me

Didn't the HPV guys get a nobel prize despite the fact they proved nothing?

pretty much, yeah.

Anybody know when the next investigation is? Not the next episode, but, the next investigation.

I have no idea the episode way predates that

This episode more than made up for episode 4 for me.

WEED

LMAO

Since the show is investigative journalism, they don't need permission to show faces.

>You're just ensuring these people will never be rehabilitated into society
Good.

PLEASE!!! PLEEAASE!!!

i thought they were busting predators, not bald betas that want to smoke out teenagers.

Right so when they're out in two years and can't get a job or help for their disorder, do you want to pay for their welfare and donate a kid for them to fuck

Why isn't there a term for the law version of "broscience?" Dudelaw?

No, they should be culled.

Oh great, the liberal version of sharia law.

>They show video of the guy tutoring
This show is a sham

...

they probably pulled it off his facebook

You can literally find their court records on the internet you IQlet

you have to wonder why the natural response to men responding to biology is to create a tv show about a witch hunt. is your teenage daughter fucking an adult sort of terrible? yeah, it should be an issue for parents to sort. but america is insane and thinks sexually active teenagers are equal to 6 year olds.

there comes a point (puberty) when people who are not legally adults become capable of acting like adults. treating them like children is inviting disaster and corruption of the spirit of law.

...

It's literally not unhealthy to want to fuck teenagers, it's also not pedophilia. But, I know you're just baiting.

Fucking Americucks and their vigilante pedo witch hunts never cease to amuse me. It's completely healthy to be attracted to girls at that age drawn or not and it's not like they really did anything lewd. Besides the decoy was an old woman along with the online baiters who pressured the poor guy. Fuck off edgy SJW there is nothing wrong with those feelings so long as you don't act on them especially since women prefer older men anyway and children these age are aging faster than ever. Maybe Trump can save you christcucks.

Hmm, I can see a bit of Hansen's gut here. Looks like he was a little chubby all along.

Any man his age who isn't walking into a gym every other day and eating raw food has a gut. He looks fine.

It's an actor kek
You think they were lucky enough to get a clip of him writing '32 + 13'?

*looked

HANSEN BTFO

...

...

>monsters should have rights
Nah fuck then

>32+13 = Trouble

HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH IT?????

Is it any coincidence conservative female anchors tend to be more attractive than liberal female anchors?

Nope, Heather is a babe and the only reason I watch Fox and Friends before I go to work

>hansen's gut

fukkken kek

You know you've let yourself go when the pedos don't ever recognize you anymore.

>I'm Chris Hansen
>No you're not!
>Hansen's face when

But Boss Papi knew who he was, user.

>you will never bully hansen about being fat until he gets upset and leaves so you can fuck the decoy

>implying he wouldn't banter you to the point of suicide if you even tried

>implying he wouldn't run out of one liners he spent all night writing
i'm australian btw
he's done for

>hey big guy
>leave some cookies for the pervs

I've seen the nature shows, Dundee, so I know everything in Australia is a predator. You don't stand a chance.

He is a big guy though...

...

it's HEBEphilia, not PEDOphilia. Young pussy is my pussy, and it's 12-14, not 11 and below, OK?
learn my pronouns shitlord

planning+some form of overt act
his plan to share a controlled substance with a minor was shown by his texts. This satisfies the overt act requirement of intent.

>yfw

t.dumbass

>'There's something you need to know. I'm Chris Hansen'
>'No you're not'

Ok, somebody needs to do this. Someone with nothing to lose should volunteer and go on the show. For Cred Forums

clever user

>You don't fucking text a 13 year old
What if they're related to you?
What if you're a mentor to them?
What if you're their babysitter?

If I can't text a 13 year old, how am I supposed to meet up with her? Are you gonna pay to train my carrier pigeons?

>texting a 13 year old relative about weed and sex
>texting a 13 year old student about weed and sex
>texting your 13 year old you are babysitting about weed and sex

And draw pictures of your boner on a little scroll

>Obsessed with pizza
>smoke weed often

literally me

The terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" basically only exist because, otherwise, the only term for wanting to have sex with fully developed and consenting (whether the law recognizes their ability to consent or not) individuals is "PERFECTLY NORMAL"

If anything, you should be supporting such terms because it allows you to refer to these people, correctly, as something other than "PERFECTLY NORMAL"

this

What's up with Americans desire to watch criminals on tv?
You should be trying to rehabilitate them, not making their lives even more shit by publicly shaming and ridiculing them.

>consenting (whether the law recognizes their ability to consent or not)
without laws we're nothing but savages
one does simply not pick and choose laws depending on their pucci preferences

You fucking leftist piece of shit. They're fucking pederasses they should be fucking shot not just ridiculed.

>leftist
Killkit was an vocal Trump supporter. :^)

>the law is immutable

you're done here.

americans love them some schadenfreude.

>implying they choose to be pedophile
I'm pretty sure they didn't just wake up one morning and decide to like little kids.
They need to learn to control their urges and get a therapist.
Shit like this is helping nobody except your ego.

>You fucking leftist piece of shit
My political orientation has nothing to do with not being a edgy piece of shit.

I'm not saying it's immutable; I'm saying before it is decreed as unconstitutional, you have no business not following it. (You)'re done here.

>the constitution [laws] is the only thing that can invalidate law

so whats it like not knowing shit about shit?

...

the constitution is (((the))) law under which all other laws are tested. It's not called the supreme law for no reason.
>so whats it like not knowing shit about shit?
I don't know you tell me

>lol i've heard all these objections before therefore they're invalid

Well, if you wanna talk about the constitution, lets do so!

It can be argued that plea bargaining in general is a gross subversion of the fifth and sixth amendments, and all of these convictions are from plea deals.

Furthermore the sixth amendment comes into play as its literally impossible to find a jury that is capable of being impartial when it comes to "crimes against children." Even fucking criminals get righteous about that shit.

Also eighth amendment. Destroying people's lives utterly because they had intent to attempt to risk injury to a child.

Also ninth and tenth amendment.

So, yea, there's a lot of grounds to get all these purposefully vague criminal statutes tossed the fuck out. But, no ones going to do that, because that would mean they're defending the rights of "pedophiles." Which would make people think they're pedophiles.

Thus the reason the term "witch hunt" always comes into play in these threads.

>To catch a predator
>Guy ends up not even being charged a sexual predator

Good job Hansen

dude, he was totally going to try to talk to a 13 year old girl about yoga and weed

They've been picked over and broken down and shown to be invalid so many times on these threads that it isn't worth going into anymore. That's what the bingo card is for. :^)

First, you argue against the constitution being the ultimate test of laws...by citing the constitution?
Second, a penal law will be upheld if it is not so vague that people wouldn't know what is illegal, if it does not punish without trial, and if it does not make acts (that were not then illegal) performed prior its enactment illegal.
I tried understand your """arguments""" then it becomes apparent you do not know what you are talking about, and I will address the first of them to give this (You) some substance
>plea bargaining in general is a gross subversion of the fifth and sixth amendments
So you're saying that you know better than the entire SCOTUS who unanimously voted that plea bargaining is constitutional?
This """argument""" made me stop reading the rest of your post lmao

And stay there you projecting teenage fuckstick.

So you're barely literate. That's consistent at least.

In these cases, yes, any reasonable person would have to say plea bargaining is unconstitutional because the alternative is being tried by an impartial jury.

If anything, this particular subject matter seems like a sort of "breaking point" for plea bargaining and child protection laws in general.

user, you're the only one being edgy defending pedos

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/742/case.html
>plea bargaining in general is a gross subversion of the fifth and sixth amendments
>this entire case

>this particular subject matter seems like a sort of "breaking point" for plea bargaining and child protection laws in general.
Then represent any of these fine gentlemen and make sure you drop some ebin maymays so that, when you convince the SCOTUS that
>plea bargaining in general is a gross subversion of the fifth and sixth amendments
we will know it was (You) who breached the """breaking point""" for plea bargaining and rewrote Constitutional Law 4ever.
>mfw retard tries2law

... so you just repeated your argument, and the counter-argument in different wording, and declared yourself victorious.

I mean its been pretty obvious for weeks you have no interest in actual debate, so it's not like this is new behavior or anything from (you).

No... all anyones really done is shit all over themselves to a point where it became obvious they were neither interested in discussion or debate, thus causing anyone remotely intelligent to disengage from them. At which point they declared themselves victorious because they got the last word.

>actual debate
I have no interest in debating law with someone who says things like "plea bargaining in general is a gross subversion of the fifth and sixth amendments"
I would have given you credits if you have said "plea bargaining (((in this instance))) is a gross subversion of the firth and sixth amendments" [but still not really, since there are remedies still available for the defendant] but you went full retard with the "in general"
Read the case brah it's like, right there

Joke's on you faggot, you're wrong because I've been autistically perusing every single Hansen thread since HvP dropped and the only salient points the PIDF have made that weren't broken down by basic, rational thought or anons in law school were ones concerning early episodes of TCAP when they were sloppy with their methods and people got off as a result.

Is this from Jared Jr's episode or the latest episode?

... like I said,
>shit[ing] all over themselves to a point where it became obvious they [are] neither interested in discussion or debate

The only points are counters are, as if scripted
>but its illegal!
>but they wanna fuck kids!

I don't think the fake girl owns the house, mate.

It's from the Boss Papi episode.
I'm not going to bother explaining things for the umpteenth time to a new set of retards every time an episode drops PIDF, I'm sorry.

I fail to see how giving an alternative way of dealing with pedophiles makes me an edgy pedo apologist.
Especially since the status quo is not doing anything to solve the problem.

>making fun of a guy's college

Based Hansen takes no prisoners

>implying you ever explained anything in the first place

It doesn't matter if you believe me, PIDF. You're not getting spoonfed today.

Considering "edgy" is going against the status quo in a reasonably safe manner (there's tons of legal/constitutional precedent to just erase all of of this shit) that means hes saying he agrees with you but hes more interested in the attention he gets from pretending saying anything other than "go hansen go" means you want to fuck kids.

What do I have to do to be accepted by you tvs?
I just can't fit in on R9k or b

Ah, the "i have no arguments so I'm not going to give any and you're stupid for wanting any" approach.

You kinda screwed up the dismount though, so you'll lose some points for that.

Is there a more based pedo in the history of the world?

Stop being a fucking namefag, first of all.

Muhammad?

Keep thinking that, PIDF, it's no skin off my ass. :^)

Yea, I know. You're just in it for the (you)s.

If 13 year olds can't give sexual intent then why can they get pregnant?

Reddit: 1
Cred Forums: -infinity

Muhammad never called his cock Mr. Penis so I'm gonna have to give it to Lorne.

Did Lorne found an entire religion though.

If JFK shouldn't have been assassinated then why were bullets able to kill him?

Lee Harvey Oswald: 1
Warren Commission: -infinity

no that's the legal definition of entrapment though. if you just start randomly messaging adult males from "13 year old's" facebook accounts that shit would get thrown out in court immediately. that's why chat rooms were perfect for these types of stings. i think they fundamentally are much more difficult in the age of social media because not only do you have to fake social media profiles, you have to fake an entire friends list and history and that shit is not easy to do.

Yes

churchofcawd.com/

Why do people talk?

I don't get it.

most people are retarded and don't understand that they have rights and that talking to anyone is a stupid fucking thing to do when you've just been caught red handed in the commission of a felony.

it makes for fascinating television though.

hansen gives them the choice between talking and arrest, then edits that bit out to make it look like he just gives them a look and they spill everything.

As considering hansen isn't law enforcement, hes under no obligation to respect any right these people have.

i doubt it. many people on the original show saw him and just bolted. there were just so many people that did stay and talk to him that they always had plenty of footage for TV.

plus half the people ask him after they've already started talking if they're going to be arrested afterwards. that would make no sense if he had already told them they had a choice between talking to him or being arrested.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Then again, most people are liberals too, so lol. This society is so fucked.

I don't know why I want to live on this planet anymore

>he thinks "liberals" are real

... yea at this point suicide seems like your best option.

whats your endgame

...

I think if I were one of those pedos I would try to find a way to kill myself after I saw Chris because your life is basically over after that. Everyone you've ever met will resent you, you will never be able to get a stable job or find happiness after you got out of the joint.

Sure, but what do if you're accused of rape and you didn't do it?

pass time till i can kill myself

its only an issue if they strum up some bullshit to prove intent.

It's your word against theirs. Unless you're Cosby tier it's not going to fuck you over, you'll just have some haters.

Right but the thing is, even an accusation or a charge will stick with you forever. Guilty or not guilty doesn't matter.

But an accusation isn't a sign on your forehead. If you're a proven rapist you're easily searchable on the internet and good luck getting work after that. If everyone who lives around you thinks you're a rapist just fuck off to another area.

>But an accusation isn't a sign on your forehead.

It is for people who hear second, third, fourth hand.

Obviously not the same as being convicted though lol.

I was kinda being facetious. All these threads go over and over the fact they can strum up intent without any sort of quantification or proof because these legal statutes are so vague and open they practically don't even need an actual suspect.

>implying you ever explained anything in the first place
He didn't (probably), but other lawfags did.

... you do realize we're living in the future nowadays and, yes, an accusation is just as bad as a conviction because everything is permanently archived and searchable by anyone.

>question legality
>its illegal!
>question validity
>you wanna fuck kids

All that's ever happened.

It's all hearsay, who gives a shit? Everyone turning against you and buying the story is not going to happen.

>because these legal statutes are so vague and open they practically don't even need an actual suspect.
they are not tho. Remember the doctor who hired a top-tier lawyer and spent millions for his defense? Yeah I doubt his lawyer would have missed to use the void-for-vagueness rule, a basic rule in criminal law, if it were applicable.

have fun with a jury lol

>question validity
>a penal law will be upheld if it is not so vague that people wouldn't know what is illegal, if it does not punish without trial, and if it does not make acts (that were not then illegal) performed prior its enactment illegal.
the laws have been thus far either went unchallenged or was challenged but the challenge was not successful. Not all of these men waived their right to a lawyer, and any lawyer would have challenged the validity of the laws if he believed that the challenge was not frivolous, because the PRC (for federal practice if applicable) and most jurisdictions WILL punish a lawyer for bringing frivolous bullshit into court.

If you didn't rape then there should not be convicting evidence, yeah some innocents slip through the cracks but usually the girl is the one who is made out to be a liar because rape is a difficult crime to prove.

>because rape is a difficult crime to prove.
lol pleb get learnt
cc.com/video-clips/jwmvxd/chappelle-s-show-love-contract

Reputation in community man.

Upvoted

>taking his reddit mannerisms to places other than reddit
:^)

Downvoted

:^(

No its difficult to jail people because of a tv show

>Everyone you've ever met will resent you, you will never be able to get a stable job or find happiness after you got out of the joint.
I too would kill myself if i were a neet loser with no friends, i can't imagine how terrible that hypothetical life would be.

>you need money to win
Oh boy

No what I'm saying is that if the law themselves were vague, any lawyer worth their salt would have attacked that from the get go.

that's a collision between the assumption law is valid while in practice and any other criticism of these laws.

and besides, spending money at all on this shit is pointless because you'll never get an impartial jury.

He lost anyway
pressdemocrat.com/news/2283094-181/three-years-later-doctor-takes

>You should be trying to rehabilitate them

There's no rehabilitating someone who chose to be the way they are. It's not like they inadvertently got hooked on crystal meth, they chose to be a sick pedophile who preys on the vulnerable.

There's no coming back from that.

They're evolutionary fuckups and deserve to be 2nd class citizens at best for the rest of their lives.

>Pedo who's not a complete moron

Chris Hansen stood no chance

>that's a collision between the assumption law is valid while in practice and any other criticism of these laws.
1. If a law is invalid for one reason or another and the attorney - court appointed or otherwise - did try to raise the issue, he or she could be open to disciplinary actions for malpractice. Also, the prosecutor is REQUIRED to disclose to the opposing counsel any fact or law that might help exculpate the defendant.
>and besides, spending money at all on this shit is pointless because you'll never get an impartial jury.
2. The question of whether a law is valid or not is a question of law. Questions of law are determined by the judge. The jury only handles questions of fact.

>did try
*did not

>ctrl+f
>they did not try to challege the validity of the law

shits so fucking standard it's perfunctory and the overruling is just as perfunctory.

they do not challenge the law because they (the attorneys) KNOW that it will be frivolous to do so. They COULD challenge it, but like I have said, most states have rules against bringing frivolous claims in court because that shit wastes everybody's time and tax payer's money. That no one tried to raise that issue speaks against the argument that those laws were vague. Or perhaps ALL of the attorneys, including that one who got paid millions, were retarded, is that what you are saying?

>they do not challenge the law
to be clear, I meant "they did not challenge the laws that were applicable to these cases"
Laws have been challenged and successfully repealed/amended, but not these ones.

... so they're open to disciplinary actions for malpractice.

Not bringing a non-frivolous claim which is important to help exculpate a defendant will expose the attorneys to disciplinary actions.
Challenging a statute for being vague when it is clearly not is frivolous. Use your logic, user.

and questioning the validity of any remotely questionable law is always non-frivolous, and always subject to perfunctory overrule.

If you're just here to have the last word or other kiddie shit, here's my final (You)
If you really want to learn, google void-for-vagueness doctrine, and google the statutes under which the men were charged. The test for vagueness is based on what a layman of common intellect would understand reading the law, meaning said layman would know what acts are prohibited. If you still think the laws were vague, I genuinely urge you to take the matter up with the integrated bar association of the jurisdiction of the law you would like to challenge as void for being vague.

>be wrong
>accuse opposition of "last wording"

son, really.