Who wants to endlessly debate a little ?

[highline]

CJS,

I respect that you do not want to fish around for the former posts.  I would ask though that you retract your disputed accusations as you are unwilling to back them up with facts.

[MaineShark]

You know what . I promised my self I would never log in there again so I won't. and I supported freekeene monthly for a while , so I was not some angry statist with an agenda.

The thread was about a 26 year old male who felt he was victimized by LOE's for trying to get a hook up for sex with a 13 year old girl  online. I can't believe no one remembers that thread.

It's not a lack of remembrance of the thread.  The thread in question is right here: http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=3714.0

The thing is, no one seems to recall anyone saying what you claimed was said.  I just re-read it, and I can't find anyone saying what you claim was said.

Joe

[highline]

You know what . I promised my self I would never log in there again so I won't. and I supported freekeene monthly for a while , so I was not some angry statist with an agenda.

The thread was about a 26 year old male who felt he was victimized by LOE's for trying to get a hook up for sex with a 13 year old girl  online. I can't believe no one remembers that thread.

It's not a lack of remembrance of the thread.  The thread in question is right here: http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=3714.0

The thing is, no one seems to recall anyone saying what you claimed was said.  I just re-read it, and I can't find anyone saying what you claim was said.

Joe

Thanks for the link Joe.

I said:

In my opinion, you did nothing wrong.

I think there are 14 year old people who are capable of consenting to sex.  I think there are 16 year old people who are incapable of consenting to sex.

I think this law is ridiculous...  and you harmed no one.  I'm sorry you have the stigma of being a "sex offender."

Hmmmmmm.  That seems to be in a different context than CJS is alleging.

[highline]

I just re-read that entire thread and will state unequivocally that I stand by everything I said.  Particularly:

If an allegation of non-consentual sex is lodged against someone (without violence or drugging or something) an analysis of many many factors should be relevant...  not some arbitrary number.

There are some 24 year olds that I think are incapable of consenting to sexual activity.  There are some 14 year olds that I think are.

I suspected that the person who wrote that thread was doing it to try and make people with a differing public policy opinion look bad.  I played into it anyways because I think it is an important discussion to have.

I've registered sex offenders before and have heard their stories.  Not all "sex offenders" are criminals.

The ones who ARE criminals SHOULD be locked away. 

[CJS]

of course you do . You stated he did nothing wrong trolling for 13 Y/O's and that is just what he admitted to .. you think he would turn down a 11 Y/O? You say he showed poor judgment? dear god !

Do you honestly think ( that is if he wasn't trolling  FreeKeene ) that he has not hurt any CHILDREN?
OMFG you are all over the place brad then you say >>I think someone who is on the prowl for 14 year old girls is someone who is worthy of some serious ostracism. 

So which is it Bradly .. either he did nothing wrong or he deserves to be shunned .. which is it that he deserved ?

[highline]

of course you do . You stated he did nothing wrong trolling for 13 Y/O's and that is just what he admitted to .. you think he would turn down a 11 Y/O? You say he showed poor judgment? dear god !

Ohhhh I get what you're saying and why there is confusion.  Okay, please allow me to clarify.  I agree with you that my position appears to be contradictory.

The law in question, RSA 649-B:4, does not require a victim.  If someone is not actually victimized by someone, I don't believe someone has done something wrong.

  I. No person shall knowingly utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any of the following:
       (a) Any offense under RSA 632-A, relative to sexual assault and related offenses.
       (b) Indecent exposure and lewdness under RSA 645:1.
       (c) Endangering a child as defined in RSA 639:3, III.
    II. (a) A person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class A felony if such person believed the child was under the age of 13, otherwise such person shall be guilty of a class B felony.
       (b) A person convicted under paragraph I based on an indictment alleging that the person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent offense in an out-of-state jurisdiction shall be charged as a class A felony. If the indictment also alleges that the person believed that the child was under the age of 13, the person may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 20 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 10 years.
       (c) If the person has been previously convicted 2 or more times for an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person may be sentenced to a maximum term not to exceed 30 years.
    III. It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the victim was not actually a child so long as the person reasonably believed that the victim was a child.

So here we have a guy who (alledgedly, I still believe this entire scenario to be ficticious) hit on an undercover police officer online and solicited him for sex, believing it was a female.  There was no victim.  No victim, no crime.

If he had actually been talking to a child and soliciting a child for sex, there IS a victim.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.  I should have been more clear about what I meant.

[MaineShark]

of course you do . You stated he did nothing wrong trolling for 13 Y/O's and that is just what he admitted to .. you think he would turn down a 11 Y/O? You say he showed poor judgment? dear god !

Do you honestly think ( that is if he wasn't trolling  FreeKeene ) that he has not hurt any CHILDREN?
OMFG you are all over the place brad then you say >>I think someone who is on the prowl for 14 year old girls is someone who is worthy of some serious ostracism. 

So which is it Bradly .. either he did nothing wrong or he deserves to be shunned .. which is it that he deserved ?

Um, you might want to re-read the original post.

He stated that he was chatting with someone.  She asked him to meet her for oral sex.  After he agreed (to a meeting that she suggested), she told him that she was 14.

He wasn't "trolling" for children.  He didn't know her supposed age when they started chatting.  She propositioned him (textbook entrapment, but they don't bother to hold the cops accountable for entrapment, any more).  After he agreed to meet, then she told him that she was 14.

What highline said was consistent.  He would ostracize someone who went out of their way to seek very-young partners.  But in this case, the accused was the one who was pursued, not the pursuer.

There's a difference between someone making a spontaneous poor choice, and someone sitting down to plot out an plan to molest children.

And, of course, the whole thing was faked by the cops.  There never was a 14-year-old girl.  It was some detective, who must have a few screws loose, if s/he is able to fake at being a "slutty" teenager that well.  I'd be worried about my children around that detective, personally... spending your days impersonating a teenager out looking for sex is not healthy behavior.

Like I said in that thread, there's no telling what he would have done, if the situation were real, not faked.  When he looked at her, he might have been so disgusted by what he was about to do, that he would have a change or heart, and never even consider the possibility, again.  We don't know, because the whole thing was faked up by the cops.  At very least, they should have gotten a young-looking actress, if they were going to fake it, to see how he would react to a "real child" being at the meeting-place.  That would tell more about him, than walking into a room, and being immediately arrested.

Joe

[highline]

I'd be worried about my children around that detective, personally... spending your days impersonating a teenager out looking for sex is not healthy behavior.

Impersonating a teenager and looking at disgusting pictures of children being abused all day.

I have no idea how these types of fictitious victim/police generated encounter cases fly past the entrapment defense, but they do.

[CJS]

I tell all kids to stay the hell away from police , but that is a different debate all together.

I really did not want this shit, all this negative shit.

I honestly wanted to bust Ian's chops about the non anonymous comments he was calling anonymous , and posted the reason I do not want to give my name and e mail up  to comment . I posted why I do not want to login and that is my right.

This is my fault in as much as I responded to Bradly in the first place.

I just love the double standards and hypocrisy from some of the Keeniacs. If any of the statists said the exact same thing as Ian did about there website he would be busting their balls for it .

Lastly , Ian alluded that I should use a fake E Mail and name to comment and I might but the thought never entered my head .. I guess I am just to honest . Maybe I need to be less honest I guess.

[MaineShark]

Lastly , Ian alluded that I should use a fake E Mail and name to comment and I might but the thought never entered my head .. I guess I am just to honest . Maybe I need to be less honest I guess.

If it's any help, I don't think someone who goes around falsely accusing others of supporting pedophilia is all that honest.  So, you should have no problem using a fake email and name, because that's far lower on the "dishonesty" scale than what you just did...

I think you need to man up, and either provide the evidence to support your claims, or make an unqualified apology to the individuals you libeled.

Joe

[highline]

CJS,

I've got no ill will towards you for anything.  I am sorry we had this disagreement and I hope you can understand my differing opinion on the law and its consequences.

I want children to be protected from harm.  I think this could be accomplished in many better ways, without the numerous lives ruined by the shrapnel of the arbitrary limit.

[Russell Kanning]

so all of this came up from a cop faking a potentially bad situation?
if you use bad means .... you get bad ends

why shouldn't keeniacs attack the cops behavior?

[CJS]

CJS,

I've got no ill will towards you for anything.  I am sorry we had this disagreement and I hope you can understand my differing opinion on the law and its consequences.

I want children to be protected from harm.  I think this could be accomplished in many better ways, without the numerous lives ruined by the shrapnel of the arbitrary limit.

Bradly  I agree about the lives destroyed because of false allegations . I know a guy on the sex offenders list for relieving himself in a dark alley . The laws are screwed up and its just like you said ... emotions get the best of the mob when reason and logic would best serve .

  But no one will ever change my mind about predators . No one will ever convince me that men ( mostly) who exploit children can be trusted and should be accepted as they are , that they showed bad judgment .. that is crap. They continually repeat their bad behavior because that is how they are wired. Thinking they can be helped by a shrink is as silly as the born again christians thinking they can pray a gay man straight
.
As far as my libeling anyone. I have not and maybe some one else can speak to what they are holding back. Ian has spoken of children being able to decide when they share themselves . Children. He has said it many times and some one here has heard his words and is not speaking up .I am more than a little sad that you feel that way but am sure when more information comes to light you will change your mind , but I am not the one to bring it up. 

Abusers are being protected Joe . But you're the one with daughters there, not me. I re read what you posted in that thread and will say that yet again you made a reasonable comment about your daughter and how you would handle something like that . I ask this.. what kind of 28 year old man desires a relationship with a 14 year old girl? Do you want your daughter , no matter how well you raised her .. no matter how emotionally mature she is going on dates with that 28 year old ?

   Russell I agree they should attack the cops bad behavior , but what of their fellow activists behavior? Why are activists given a free pass for the same bad behavior?

  I have asked more than once in the couple years I have been posting here for some one to explain to me how a free society would handle a predator or a murderer and no one does.

  Maybe it's best that I am done here also. I guess I am not freedom loving enough .

[highline]

Bradly  I agree about the lives destroyed because of false allegations . I know a guy on the sex offenders list for relieving himself in a dark alley . The laws are screwed up and its just like you said ... emotions get the best of the mob when reason and logic would best serve .

I'm glad we agree on that

  But no one will ever change my mind about predators . No one will ever convince me that men ( mostly) who exploit children can be trusted and should be accepted as they are , that they showed bad judgment .. that is crap. They continually repeat their bad behavior because that is how they are wired. Thinking they can be helped by a shrink is as silly as the born again christians thinking they can pray a gay man straight.

You make a very good point that is certainly backed by tons of evidence.  True predators of the innocent should be removed from society...  permanently if need be.  I support such an indefinite detention so long as the detainee is afforded the maximum amount of rights with regards to due process, counsel, evidence, etc...

Murderers should not be let free into society.  Neither should bonafide threats to the most vulnerable members of our families.

In the case of the fellow who posted on the Free Keene forum, I believe Joe critiqued the problems with that situation fairly well. 

Ian has spoken of children being able to decide when they share themselves . Children. He has said it many times and some one here has heard his words and is not speaking up .I am more than a little sad that you feel that way but am sure when more information comes to light you will change your mind , but I am not the one to bring it up. 

He has said something like that and I can understand how it is so controversial.  The context in which he says it though is based on his real life experiences.  Ian may have controversial opinions about controversial issues, but I've never known him to be accused of lying.  He claims, and I believe him, that he consented to sexual activity when he was 11. 

I don't think I could have consented when *I* was 11, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't. 

  I have asked more than once in the couple years I have been posting here for some one to explain to me how a free society would handle a predator or a murderer and no one does.

I'm not really all that wise of a libertarian/free market philosopher, so I can't give you a good answer.  I've heard lots of great ideas that make sense to me...  and they all come from people far smarter than I.

  Maybe it's best that I am done here also. I guess I am not freedom loving enough .

Don't be silly.  Your participation in the debate is important.  So we disagree on a issue that is emotionally charged.  It's okay...  and in the end I think we're both better for hearing each others opinions. 

[littlehawk]

Thank God for Russell's summary.