ORIGINAL: cmoulder
Hi, Mike:
With all due respect - and it is considerable in light of your contributions to the hobby/sport - I can imagine that more people are lurking and not weighing in to opine because there is no point in debating someone who sees ''thinking'' and ''acting'' as the same thing.
What we're talking about here is someone who (allegedly, at this point) did a heckuva lot more than just ''think''. He communicated back and forth to make detailed and specific plans to engage in an illegal activity, and then got in a car and traveled some distance with every intent (again, allegedly at this point) to carry them out. If you can't discern the difference between the two, what's the point even discussing it?
You claim to revere the Constitution. Do you? Yes, it gives defendants a lot of rights, but it also gives society at large some defensive mechanisms as well. The constitutional legitimacy of the ''sting'' as a law enforcement tool has been upheld time and time again by state and federal courts, all the way up to the Supremes, composed of judges and justices that lean both left and right. That is why the penalties for conspiracy are in most cases nearly as severe as those for actual commission of a crime. Law enforcement agencies have been using it for a long time and are well versed in scripting them to demonstrate intent, which is the crux of a successful prosecution. Entrapment, which is convincing someone to do something he would not otherwise do, is a legal stumble that is not often made these days, and the sting scripts usually give potential offenders multiple opportunities to opt out.
You say you are compassionate, but where is your compassion for the victims of these crimes, who are at the very least emotionally scarred for their entire lifetimes? That is the point of these operations, and when they are set in motion there is no plan (usually) on the part of law enforcement to go after any specific individual.
This kind of sting is set up to catch serious, serial offenders, and my guess (pure, unalloyed speculation) is that Jason is a little fish that got caught in the net because of a one-time, dumb@$$ mistake. Even if he is convicted or pleads, assuming there is no furthere evidence of past and repeated similar behavior, he might get probation and court-ordered counseling.
Whatever the outcome, this whole nasty episode will have gone a long way toward ''curing'' whatever emotional or psychological ailments might have existed.
I wish Jason, and especially his family, friends and supporters, all the best going forward.
From a compassionate, cigar-smoking law enforcement guy (a Piggy? wow... hmmm...)
yes, "piggy". If you're really in Law enforcement and that term bothers you, your skin is much too thin to be a cop. I have SEVERAL friends and ex colleagues who were/are still in Law enforcement and that term is a joke as old as bacon, fuzz, heat, smokey bear, etc. Now realize most of my experience is from downtown Atl, zone 1 and 3. I lived in East point and College park most of my life until my late 20s. Anyone who knows that area knows....you're a predator or you are prey. LEO or civillian.
If you ARE in law enforcement then you know what I say has a heck of a lot of truth. Admitting that here or not is irrelavent, but at least it's a common frame of reference. I've been on both sides of the fence and I have seen a LOT. Good guys, bad guys, and everything in between. you know as well as I do how much corruption there is in the police department, especially in ANY large city. The biggest drug dealers in Atlanta were ALL cops. Do a google search on "Atlanta red dog unit" and have yourself a ball reading about these salt of the earth stellar citizens. I've been personal witness to what happens when a distant family member gets railroaded by an over zealous group of cops. It's INSANE at the rate it happens but it's never front page news is it?
The only reason I even bring it up is simple. All any of us have is the word of the police. Period. Nada else. I'm sorry but I don't automatically believe something just because a cop says so. They're human beings, not infallable gods. yes they have hard job but they CHOSE that job and the responsibility that goes with it. You and I both know how easy it is to slant a conversation to get exactly what charges you want. The only thing is it all depends on the particular officer, detective whatever.
Sorry, I want proof, not talk. The more serious the charge, the more proof I want. If I get on a jury and all they present is the officer's testimony, they lose with me. But had I never had any direct experience with law enforcement myself, I can see why someone would just take them at thier word. Sorry, but if I had a nickel for every time a cop planted evidence (and laughed about it), and I saw it with my OWN EYES, I'd be rich. After all, it's really not often we get told about it (general public). We're supposed to believe they're out there protecting our children. Some are. Some are in it for the money. Some for the power trip. Deny it, you can't if you're being honest. ESPECIALLY if you're in LE in NY.
Here's the thing. Are you personally privvy to the "facts" in this case? I doubt it. But being on the other side of the blue curtain, I more than expect your veiw point. Remember, and keep in mind, I am NOT accusing you of ANYTHING. I am simply explaining that I see different possibilities, that's all. And that's what court is for. To sort it out. From what I hear, (rumor of course), there are more than a few discrepancies in this case and I am fairly confident the outcome isn't going to be what most people here seem to think. If he's dead guilty, then that's that. My point is too many people assume guilt before it's established.
As far as the constitution and it's interpretation, why do we even have a supreme court if it's all been decided long ago? It's because it hasn't been. It's always an ongoing arguement. it was designed that way from the beginning. it used to be illegal for a black guy to eat in the same resturaunt as whites. Remember that? Were "we" right then too? We owned slaves and that was legal at one time. A long time at that. Why do we not have slaves now? Because the interpretation changed.
Show me one person here that condones child sex offenses. I'll wait......
But we don't have that right now, we have a law enforcement department that charged him with "intent" and that's ALL we have. Anything beyond that is pure speculation, and I fail to see the point. I've had the "intent" to do a lot of things, but I thought better of it and didn't actually do it. We know for a fact Jason didn't go to thier bust house. Who can really say what he would have done? You can guess all day long but you aren't necessarily right. because you don't know. Did any of you see the alleged pics on his phone or computer? Nope. All you saw was a police report (misdated BTW LOL). I can't count how many police reports I've filled out, and that one was one SLOPPY mess of a job. If you read it you know what I mean.
Of course I see the need for REAL predators to get caught. But there are ways to do things and there are ways NOT to. in my opinion this case may well be the latter. I realize it depends a lot on your personal views and I have no false impressions of changing any minds about anything. What sickens me is the fact that the damage is done. if they came out tomorrow and acquitted him of everything, it wouldn't be enough to undo the damage. Yeah he screwed up. But that's a mighty big leap from what they have actually shown us and a conviction.
Keep up the good fight Mr. Piggy. (LOL) Seriously, thanks for your hard work and putting yourself in danger if that's what you do. But don't expect some of us who have had bad personal experiences to automatically believe everything LE says at face value just because they wear a badge. When I see holy divine light exuding from a cop, then maybe. Till then, he puts his pants on one leg at a time just like me. And he's not infallable and THAT is why that's in the constitution. So I'm content to wait until due process has been achieved. NOT before that.
-Mike