What does that prove?
These were ads placed in classifieds and dating sites where someone looking for other things can also see them.
People looking for "something else" aren't going to answer ads from underage hookers.
Just like using a police woman as bait in the street to convince men to pay her. If she did not exist, nobody would be talking to her.
No, they would be going after someone else. And if they turned out to be sickos who intended to do harm, then that someone else would be saved by the vice squad.
That is not assuming they would commit a violent crime. They're being busted for what they did, solicitation, not for what they might have done.
I know, for what they allegedly did. Innocent until proven guilty. And if you want to make the case that the cops aren't always telling the truth (see Baltimore), you'll get no argument from me. That's why we have trial dates, and they'll get theirs.
They are making a prediction by creating a fantasy situation they assume proves what someone would have done later.
If a guy solicits an under cover cop, no assumptions are necessary. We know what he would have done, because he did.
This is all very psuedo-scientific and legally dubious
That the culprit solicited sex from what he though was a minor but turned out to be a cop is very scientific and legal.
And why are you defending someone who may have made the choice to make human trafficking profitable? That's what you're doing whether you see it that way or not.
“What does that prove?”
It proves they may not have been looking specifically for that until police entered their timeline. They may have been looking for a real date and ended up seeing a police ad. Or it may have been linked to a banner on a completely random website. The marketers keep track if someone searches for online dates and put that on banners.
“That the culprit solicited sex from what he though was a minor but turned out to be a cop is very scientific and legal”
A police officer posing as a minor and/or prostitute would not appear nor act nearly the same. If a suspect saw an actual one they may have walked away.
I personally know of several people who went to look for that, saw the prostitutes face, couldn’t do it and never did it again. Instead here you would have a healthy confident cop. 100% confident she would not get killed or arrested that night. Goading you on to buy it. Completely different scenario
“And why are you defending someone who may have made the choice to make human trafficking profitable? That’s what you’re doing whether you see it that way or not.”
Not all people who look into the gutter will go into it. It is unscientific, immoral and not Christian to assume what someone would have done based on a flawed test.
Our court system will defend some terrible people and they will go free. Not because the law loves the bad people. But due to the chance that someone innocent may be punished if we assume what happened. Now when we begin to assume what WILL happen, that is a terrifying slope!
. We have a moral duty to not harm innocents like the criminals do. Even if it means some criminals will go free.