Tax Payers 1...Child predators 0

[Bwana]

Couple Dead in Murder-Suicide After They Were Featured on The O'Reilly Factor


A couple featured as wanted child predators on The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday were found dead in an apparent murder-suicide shortly after the segment aired, sources tell FOXNews.


Paul and Myrtis Gauthreaux were wanted by the FBI for engaging in sexual conduct with minors and appeared on a segment of the show that profiled alleged child pornographers.

After seeing the O’Reilly Factor segment, a relative of the couple called them before notifying the FBI of their whereabouts. When federal investigators arrived at their home, the Gauthreauxs had fled to an undisclosed location.

The FBI said Paul Gauthreaux shot his wife dead before turning the gun on himself. The child victim that the Gauthreauxs photographed in online photos was later identified and found safe.

[wazu]

Great job, O'Reilly. Way to use your powers for good.

[StcChief]

Good deal. scum of the Earth need to know fear

[Pitt Gorilla]

One of those sting-operation child predators got his sentence reduced because of something I've been talking about for some time: no child was actually in danger. The guy was chatting with a middle-aged cop, which is clearly not an underage girl. Sure, he's guilty of a thought crime (and, honestly, I'd rather him serve a much more severe punishment because he is scum), but the cops need to get their sh!t together to ensure that a legit crime is committed.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

One of those sting-operation child predators got his sentence reduced because of something I've been talking about for some time: no child was actually in danger. The guy was chatting with a middle-aged cop, which is clearly not an underage girl. Sure, he's guilty of a thought crime (and, honestly, I'd rather him serve a much more severe punishment because he is scum), but the cops need to get their sh!t together to ensure that a legit crime is committed.

I'm not sure if anyone posted it, but the whole Dateline/Perverted Justice thing got completely shreaded in a recent Rolling Stone. What you mentioned there was one of the reasons, if I remember right.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

One of those sting-operation child predators got his sentence reduced because of something I've been talking about for some time: no child was actually in danger. The guy was chatting with a middle-aged cop, which is clearly not an underage girl. Sure, he's guilty of a thought crime (and, honestly, I'd rather him serve a much more severe punishment because he is scum), but the cops need to get their sh!t together to ensure that a legit crime is committed.

So, they managed to put him away without endangering a child...why is ths bad again? Because the sentence wasn't log enough?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, they managed to put him away without endangering a child...why is ths bad again? Because the sentence wasn't log enough?

Grounds for appeal. No child was actually in danger. Why not just catch all the scum who are actually talking to kids?

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Grounds for appeal. No child was actually in danger. Why not just catch all the scum who are actually talking to kids?

1. It's much harder.

2. There aren't any cameras there.

3. Because of 1 & 2 there isn't any money in it.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Grounds for appeal. No child was actually in danger. Why not just catch all the scum who are actually talking to kids?

Appeal of what?

He did not just commit a "thoughtcrime". He committed overt acts in furtherance of his criminal goal (i.e, the internet solicitation of who he thought was a child) He was really only 1 "WMIRL" away from his perverted goal. This is exactly the kind of case where the charge "attempted _x" is appropriate and not "x".

Nearly every state jurisdiction has ruled that a mistake of fact is not enough to eliminate criminal responsibility. It's much the same situation as if a cop sells someone baking soda and they think that it's crack. The prosecution still has the burden of proving the defendant's mental state and commission of the acts.

A "mistake of law" is not penalizable. For example you think that it is a crime to sleep with a girl who is under 20 years old and you sleep with a 19 y/o. In this case, there is no criminal penalty for such an act, so the mistake does matter.

*edit* after reading this post, I sound like a know-it-all, sorry bout that***

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Grounds for appeal. No child was actually in danger. Why not just catch all the scum who are actually talking to kids?

Well, yeah, I would love for them to catch the ones that are actually talking to kids, but I imagine that's difficult to do without actually willingly allowing a child to be subjected to an online conversation with one of these sickos.

Meanwhile, if they can put away the guys who are "trying" to hit on kids, and their sentences get somewhat reduced, I would bet it's still going to scare a lot of them away, and at least we know this guy won't be molesting kids for a little while. Hopefully he'll be on the other side of it instead.

Sometimes you have to at least fight the battles you can win.

[|Zach|]

I just read Esquire's piece on the Predator episode they did with the guy who shot himself...it is really long and really interesting. Pretty ****ed up from start to end I would say.

http://www.esquire.com/features/predator

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

One of those sting-operation child predators got his sentence reduced because of something I've been talking about for some time: no child was actually in danger. The guy was chatting with a middle-aged cop, which is clearly not an underage girl. Sure, he's guilty of a thought crime (and, honestly, I'd rather him serve a much more severe punishment because he is scum), but the cops need to get their sh!t together to ensure that a legit crime is committed.

well, cops don't ensure that a crime is committed...

they're doing their best to provide relevant evidence for the use of prosecutors at trial...

as for a sentence being reduced, that's not much help in the long run...

he's still a convicted sex offender now...

good bye career, maby good bye family...

he's not guilty of a hate or thought crime,

he's been charged with attempting to commit a lewd act on a minor...

like all the other 1,000 guys caught by dateline...

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Grounds for appeal. No child was actually in danger. Why not just catch all the scum who are actually talking to kids?

i dunno...

these guys will all get convicted of attempting to perform a lewd act on a minor...

to attempt something means that you tried but didn't complete the criminal act for whatever reason...

all these guys responded to the chatroom decoys and came to the house where they believed an under age child was waiting for them to have sex...

the fact that no child was endangered doesn't change the fact that the predators did attempt to have sex with an underage person and took concrete action to accomplish that goal...

they came to the house looking for sex with a minor, which is established by their own statements on the chat room print out...

no lawyer in his right mind would appeal the verdicts in these cases...

that chat room transcript is too damning...

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Adam

Well, yeah, I would love for them to catch the ones that are actually talking to kids, but I imagine that's difficult to do without actually willingly allowing a child to be subjected to an online conversation with one of these sickos.

Meanwhile, if they can put away the guys who are "trying" to hit on kids, and their sentences get somewhat reduced, I would bet it's still going to scare a lot of them away, and at least we know this guy won't be molesting kids for a little while. Hopefully he'll be on the other side of it instead.

Sometimes you have to at least fight the battles you can win.

they are catching predators...

every time they run that tv show, they catch more sexual predators...

and the penalty for talking to kids on the net (if there is one) is probably nowhere near as severe as an attempted sex crime involving a minor...

one thing to consider might be that even shows like dateline don't acutally prevent child abuse...

even after being convicted, predators return to their ways as soon as they're released...

they literally can't help themselves...

there is no cure for pedophilia, nor even any effective treatment short of being locked up for a very long time...

[Ultra Peanut]

The "there's no actual kid" argument is like saying people can't be arrested for propositioning a cop posing as a prostitute because there's "never going to be any actual sex" or for trying to buy drugs from a cop because "he's not actually going to sell him drugs."

On the bright side, at least no one's called it entrapment yet.