World of Pageantry

Here is an article regarding the San Jose, CA band director that was arrested:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10190550

One would think this was reminiscent of NBC's "To Catch a Predator" Dateline investigation series.

MIDPRONIUM wrote:One would think this was reminiscent of NBC's "To Catch a Predator" Dateline investigation series.

"Why don't you just have a seat over there"...

But really, is it just me or is this even worse based on the fact that he is a teacher? I mean, he is around teens all day, every day. At least, pending a conviction, his credential will be revoked.

bassoonuba wrote:

MIDPRONIUM wrote:One would think this was reminiscent of NBC's "To Catch a Predator" Dateline investigation series.

"Why don't you just have a seat over there"...

But really, is it just me or is this even worse based on the fact that he is a teacher? I mean, he is around teens all day, every day. At least, pending a conviction, his credential will be revoked.

Even if he's not convicted, I guarantee this is the end of his teaching career.

Oh, I completely agree. With this on his record he'll never get hired by any district but, his credential will remain intact unless a conviction is made; he has to be proven guilty before the state will pull it.

Well, it would appear that another person that should know better decides they are above the law and uses their position to justify what they want and prey upon the innocent! These criminals are present in all walks of life, not only as educators but they all know better. They simply throw ethical behavior out the door!

You know, in this particular case, I don't think it was relevant that he was a teacher. He solicited the acts over the internet, not in the classroom, and not with his own students. A question to the legal junkies out there: How do the police avoid entrapment on a case like this?

mkosbie wrote:How do the police avoid entrapment on a case like this?

I'll take a stab at that one...

For a lawyer to successfully argue entrapment, the setup must be done such that an ordinary, law-abiding person, would be induced to commit the same crime.

In other words, if you were on a jury and you were told by the defendant's attorney "if you too would solicit sex from minors in this situation you must find the defendant not guilty."

Clearly this is not entrapment.

bassoonuba wrote:

mkosbie wrote:How do the police avoid entrapment on a case like this?

I'll take a stab at that one...

For a lawyer to successfully argue entrapment, the setup must be done such that an ordinary, law-abiding person, would be induced to commit the same crime.

In other words, if you were on a jury and you were told by the defendant's attorney "if you too would solicit sex from minors in this situation you must find the defendant not guilty."

Clearly this is not entrapment.

That's pretty much the correct analysis. Entrapment is when a law-enforcement agent of any type induces a person to commit an offense which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed.

The real key to entrapment is initiative. Not to over-simplify things, but if the agent is "suggesting" things and the perpetrator agrees to it, that's entrapment. If the perpetrator is suggesting the criminal activity and the agent is playing along, that's not entrapment. That's why the undercover vice operatives always work in such vague terms ("What would you like me to do?" etc.).

I don't mean to be defending this guys actions, I'm just curious about the legal issues at play here.

Couldn't it be argued that the agent is providing the climate for the illegal action to take place? In other words, this particular person tracked down a police officer to talk to online, NOT a real youth. What proof is there that he would have successfully found a youth in the absence of the agent's net?

How available is the agent when compared to actual youth on the internet? How attractive of a target does he make himself? In other words, was this guy enticed to action because he found a feasible target, or was his finding the target the result of a careful search. To make an analogy, did the guy find a $100 bill on the ground and decide to keep it, or did he break into the bank and steal $10,000.

mkosbie wrote:Couldn't it be argued that the agent is providing the climate for the illegal action to take place?

No. The police did not setup, own, or operate the online forum/chat room where the conversation took place.

mkosbie wrote:In other words, this particular person tracked down a police officer to talk to online, NOT a real youth.

This particular person tracked down what he thought was a 13-year-old girl and talked to her specifically because he believed her to be a 13-year-old girl.

Again, think of the vice squad analogy. The johns approach what they believe to be a prostitute because they are specifically looking for a prostitute. The police officer in the mini-skirt and high heels is not entrapping the john simply by making herself available on the street: all the initiation, the beginning of the transaction is still dependent upon the john.

mkosbie wrote:What proof is there that he would have successfully found a youth in the absence of the agent's net?

Almost all of these stings are performed in online chatrooms geared towards underage individuals (say, a "Miley Cyrus" chatroom) and where the vast majority of traffic is underage minors.

mkosbie wrote:How available is the agent when compared to actual youth on the internet? How attractive of a target does he make himself? In other words, was this guy enticed to action because he found a feasible target, or was his finding the target the result of a careful search.

As I said before, the initiation is key. The adult initiated conversation with the "minor," suggested they meet, etc.

But, IMO, that's an irrelevant argument in these cases. I don't care if the "girl" was posting provocative images of herself and talking dirty to him: he's the adult, it's HIS responsibility to say "NO."

The funniest thing I hear people say all the time....

"well if they're a cop and you ask them if they're a cop, they HAVE to tell you, otherwise it's entrapment."

WRONG!!!! Yeah, I'm sure they would make that a rule, that way you can never set up sting operations. Entrapment is one of the most misunderstood defenses and can very rarely be used as a defense, even in sting operations with an undercover cop. An example of entrapment might be if a police officer threatened you or your loved ones well being if you did not break the law, thus causing you to break a law you wouldn't have. This would also fall under the defense of duress. But I digress, mostly I just want to hear stupid people stop saying the above mentioned quote of stupidity.

Sad...I know this guy. Yikes.......

Ryan H. Turner wrote:Sad...I know this guy. Yikes.......

Don't worry Ryan.....we pretty much figured...

The Aceman wrote:

Ryan H. Turner wrote:Sad...I know this guy. Yikes.......

Don't worry Ryan.....we pretty much figured...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Un idea! I'm sure we've all done this before, but looking at his mug shot, what instrument do you think he plays?