Skip to comments.NJ Congressman Fires Aide Over Child Sex Solicitation Charges (Fmr. Obama Senior Advisor)
Posted on 11/24/2010 12:21:49 PM PST by GOPinCa
A New Jersey congressman has fired his chief of staff -- a former after the aide was arrested in Maryland on a charge of soliciting sex from a minor.
Democratic Rep. Steve Rothman took the action after learning that top aide Robert Decheine was among 11 people snared in a Gaithersburg, Md., police sting. Police placed ads on a website and an undercover officer communicated with customers through phone and text messages.
Police said the 48-year-old was arrested on Nov. 17 after soliciting to have sex with an underage girl. Decheine was released on $15,000 bail. Eleven arrests were made during the operation, which came in phases. First, ads were placed online and an undercover officer began communicating with each "John," according to the Website TMP.
The Record newspaper reports Rothman's office issued a statement saying the New Jersey Democrat considers the alleged criminal act "to be shocking, appalling and indefensible.''
Decheine told the newspaper in an e-mail message he had no comment. Decheine was a senior advisor to the Obama campaign in 2008, according to PolitickerNJ. He previously served as chief of staff to Rep. Bill Luther (D-MN).
Decheine has run Rothmans Washington and New Jersey offices since May 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnewyork.com ...
Plusses - Corrupt, sleazy Dem outed.
Minuses - “Police placed ads on a website and an undercover officer communicated with customers.” Gosh, I sure am glad that there’s no “entrapment” involved.
Obligatory Chris Hanson picture needed for this thread.
This guy was just solidifying his bona fides as a Bolshecrat.
Im sure dumbos school czar will immediately hire him
I almost got caught in that sting, but I couldn't find the meeting place! Remember how angry I was? Boy am I redfaced now!
Ping to the noob sex-offender defender.
Check out his posting history while there’s still time.
Welcome to FR noob. You’ll find your sex-offender friendly posts don’t cut it here.
I think I was 17 the last time I did that.
I agree child sex is deplorable and both Parties have had bipartisan representatives and staff that have been involved in it.
I have some mixed emotions on law enforcement using “entrapment”. It’s a gray area as to whether they are preventing crime or just ensnaring people that wouldn’t have ever been involved had they not put out bait.
I’ve seen press articles where they use it to get “johns” on prostitution charges by dressing up an attractive 20 yo female in skimpy sexy clothing and arresting them if they stop and inquire.
However I don’t believe it is “gray” when politicians are offered cash to do something illegal and they bite at it and are then caught because 99% of the time they get away with it.
But if those bit on the bait the of the sting, they'd bite on other bait as well.
They are getting people who are willing to act on it. That means that there are real kids getting hurt by these pervs every day.
I guess I don't have too much of a problem with this. Nobody is forcing these pervs to respond to the bait. It's not something they happen to stumble on and ooops, make a bad split second decision. Their responding to that bait is premeditated. And they'd do it again.
If they fall for it, it's their own stupid fault. They need to think with the brain in their heads, not any other part of their anatomy.
I don’t think that this case will qualify as entrapment:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have sold drugs, as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
In a sting like this, LEOs pose as underage boys or girls online and sexual predators are caught. People who are not online looking for underage children to have sex with will NEVER be caught in a sting like this.
Entrapment (as you noted) occurs when LEOs approach citizens and coerce them into committing crimes they never had any intention of committing.
The libertarians simply believe that ANYTHING law enforcement does to interfere with their sexual urges is somehow unconstitutional.
Well, I’m certainly glad that you’ve found something to do instead of holding down a job — serving as a posting Nazi. Here’s betting you force your kids to wear oven mitts to bed.
Of course if there were no cops using stings to get pedophiles, all the pedophilia would instantly stop.
Thanks for a thoughtful take. It’s scary to realize that there are censorious posting bullies with too much time on their hands like MetMom here.
Yes. Or any other urges.
Btw, it is considered proper etiquette here to ping someone when speaking about their posts, or if they are participants in a thread and may have an interest in subsequent posts.
We could then get around to freeing the 7 or 8 that were actually innocent of some noxious crime.
It’s your posting history.
Here’s the link to it for anyone interested.
You seem to think that people are over reacting to the sex offender thing with your *Sex offender hysteria* comment. THen there are your snarky digs at other FReepers. Like this uncalled for one....
You forgot the 3rd through 10th ones, who were just as drunk, and did nothing worse that head home and sleep it off. So tell us, AMPG, how many children have you molested?
Pretty provocative behavior for a *noob*.....
Not to mention your continual little digs at Palin.
You’ve obviously aroused suspicions.
What was your previous screen name?
Whenever I see a recent sign-on insulting other FReepers at random and responding with sarcasm in the majority of their posts, it often seems that they are eventually revealed as retreads. It seems that despite their best efforts, they are unable to conceal their hostility.
Can somebody please find an “I’m with stupid” shirt to send him?
Oh, and the arrow has to point straight down.
Wow, “Hysteria” about child molesters???
I’ll show ‘em some freaking hysteria!
You know, there’s good reason to be suspicious about someone who’s so lackadaisical about child molesters.....
Anyone who doesn’t want child molesters executed has something wrong with them.
Or at the very least life imprionment. But they should work for their keep, as should all prisoners.
You give Elwood a bad name, Doud. And Jake and I are not amused.
That's a pretty broad paint brush you are using.
If I’ve aroused the “suspicions” of anyone, it’s merely a paranoid such as yourself. How many dozens of posts did you have to dig through to find crumbs to feed your fantasies (and think of how much you could accomplish if you had a job)? If you don’t want to be snarked at, don’t threaten other conservatives.
And why does the possibility of police/prosecutorial overreach make you get nuts because children are involved? Lovers of big, unrestrained government are usually found on the Left.
I shall treat you as nonexistent static vainly trying to stir trouble among conservitives hereafter.
As a rule, conservatives understand what censorship is and leftists cry censorship whenever they are not allowed to say whatever they want.
So troll, do you know what censorship is? Do you understand that, with the exception of Jim Robinson, NONE of us have the "right" to post ANYTHING on Free Republic?
Talk about paranoid... You're the one thinking that I've *threatened* someone. I have no power to do that.
Speaking of job, you're obviously not busy enough to stay off FR. Think about how much you could accomplish of you had a job instead of posting on FR so much. Why don't you go out and do something worthwhile with your life instead instead of insisting that others go easy on sex offenders?
You're no conservative. Conservatives do now downplay sexual offenders as you've done. Although, after reading your post to me upthread, I can see why you'd want people to go easy on sex offenders. Your mind is in the gutter and it's more a reflection of you than it is of me.
Liberals classically don't know their Constitution very well. It's a dead giveaway for exposing a liberal in conservative company.
The restriction is on Congress and specifically prohibits one action on their part. It is not a blanket prohibition against censorship by private individuals. Anyone can restrict any activity they want on their property because the First Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens.
Liberals don't get that. They think that the First Amendment can be used to force others to let them say what they wish without restriction.
Case in point.
Can't be overstated.
I've reread the posts on this thread, and I'm guessing that the talk about censorship was probably a diversion.
People who complain about police entrapment have often been convicted of serious crimes and cry "police entrapment" rather than take actual responsibility for their crimes.
It’s also likely a diversion to keep people from noticing what they’re really stating.
Typical red herring.....
Ding ding ding. Winner.
Am I in before the Zot?
America, you voted for a negro socialist with an Islamic name - so why act surprised?
Is your main problem with Zero his race? Why do you even mention his race?
It appears so.
Who calls African-Americans *negros* any more anyway?
As a matter of fact you are in before the zot. And so am I. I don’t understand why. Hasn’t anyone brought this n00b, racist, defender of pedophiles to the attention of the mods yet?
Bykr Bayb - maybe they’re sitting around zonked out from eating too much...
Yeah. BB has it.