I suspect I will get sincerely hammered for this, and accused at the least of being a pederast-sympathizer, or at most, a lurker/stalker/abuser myself.
But I really do not like the government "nabbing" people this way. (Even though MSNBC is driving this, they would not have launched their effort without the clear support of the government--ie, law enforcement working in concert with them). Unless caught in flagrante delicto, to me these people have been treated unfairly. They're guilty of having their weaknesses/pathologies probed and tickled and tempted past the point of no return. They show up, and get arrested not for committing heinous acts, but for our presumption of their willingness to commit such acts.
I know of a local man who, years ago, was asked by a neighbor to use his workshop to cut down his double-barrelled 12-gauge. Why? he wanted to know. The guy responded that he didn't have a good vise, and couldn't find his hacksaw. The man smelled something, and said to the neighbor, This isn't a setup, is it? Because it's technically illegal to cut down a shotgun. No, the neighbor insisted, he just wanted to cut it down to keep in his car, for safety.
They went back and forth, back and forth, the man torn between helping out the neighbor and listening to his instincts. Finally, he relented, letting the man use his workshop.
It was an ATF sting. The neighbor was in trouble, and agreed to set up someone who "might" have been doing illegal modifications. The man had never done anything illegal re guns, as it turns out...but for the condoning of the use of his vise and hacksaw for about ten minutes.
The man lost everything. It was a stone cold setup, and it became not about catching a lawbreaker but not backing down from their gambit.
Same kind of temptation/entreaties could be foisted on any one of us: Can I keep my bullion in your safe? Would you store this deer carcasse for me? I need to park this Ford behind your shed.
In this case, MSNBC and the government are going after a universally reviled group, so little thought is ever given to their constitutional rights. Just because it's a (potential) crime that most of us find repugnant, doesn't mean we should endorse entrapment.
As for the "power of TV," and how it's being made good use of...MSNBC would drop this in a nanosecond if it weren't a ratings horse for them. Never forget: They're whores.
The BATF has a long history of that kind of crap and it's a disgrace. I don't know if they still do that today -- maybe they do.
While I don't know all the details of the sting in this article, and it's possible these people are being improperly entrapped, I don't think that's likely.
For one thing, a sexual or violent crime is a much more serious matter than a technical crime like cutting a shotgun barrel less than 18". So stronger measures seem appropriate to catch these guys and put fear into others who are like them.
Altough I am not for vigilante nor uneven justice, I have to agree with skylark that it is certainly possible to judge clear intent based on the conversations and subsequent actions here. And, the while sawing off a shotgun is an illegal act, the act itself does not actually hurt anyone itself. Indeed, in the example you sighted, it would have made equal sense to arrest the person who asked to have the gun sawed-off. Intent to have a gun-sawed off would be a crime just like doing it, but of a slightly lesser degree.
As was stated in the article, just chatting is not a crime and one guy was even warned beforehand. That is like thinking about sawing off a gun. Once he got to the point that he had a hacksaw in his hand, it is only thankful that the gun turned out to be a reporter.
I think I am drawing my metaphor out too much, but you know what I mean.
BTTT for later reply
Also, some of the sexually explicit online chat concerned the predator's intent to photograph or videotape the upcoming sex acts with the child/decoy. So, guess what they guys brought along? A videocamera.
There is a tremendous difference between sawing off an shotgun and molesting a child. But even in the situation you mentioned, the person caught in the sting had the opportunity to say no. He chose to say yes and paid for it. Whether you saw off a shotgun, put someone's gold bullion in your safe, or let him park that incriminating Ford behind your shed, you have a chance to think it over and say no.
These men who were picked up were not asked to do something wrong, they were the instigators, they were prowling to do wrong and willingly wanted to do so. They also wanted to do it to those least able to defend themselves. I'm sorry that the person you know was not wise enough to walk away. But his being naive is no reason to allow these hideous pederasts to do whatever they will with impunity.
If reporters go to chat rooms posing as a child, and if the reporter is the one who initiates sexual banter and suggests a meeting for sex, then I think that would probably cross the line into entrapment.
In that case, in spite of the seriousness and disgusting nature of the crime, the accused should probably be released.
I'm just trying to say that in spite of the repellent nature of this behavior, we shouldn't throw out all due process rights for the accused. I hope this particular sting was done correctly -- I suspect it probably was.
Actually- at the end of the show they answered some viewers e-mails- one of them addressed the entrapment issue.
Since these men all were searching for under 13 year-old children to have sex with- WITHOUT COERCION- they were hardly entrapped. It was very clear from the e-mails/chat records between the men and the person posing as the 13 yr-old they knew exactly what they were doing. The language was explicit. There could have been no doubt in the minds of these men why they were going to the house.
Not surprisingly- many of these men had records of sexual abuse.
I share your concerns. The case you mention with the guy and the ATF is blatant entrapment, and if I were on his jury I'd refuse to convict. However, my understanding of these Internet stings is that they're carefully set up so the would-be pedophile has to initiate the sexual content. The chat transcripts are apparently available if you want to check them out, which I *really* don't.