“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.
Three times you said what MAY have happened. That doesn't prove anything.
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.
Again, what MAY have happened. They were not busted for what MAY have happened, but for what they (allegedly) did.
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.
Do you think they would have told you about it if they did?
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.
They were not busted for what they would have done or might have done or may have done. They were busted for what they (allegedly) did, solicitation. That they were wrong about who they solicited is irrelevant.