Legislation Action Pending On Online Sexual Predators
 

If passed, the Sexual Predator Forfeiture Act would allow authorities to seize and use computers and other electronic devices as they see fit.

This is total crap!!!!

I can understand the drug issue because monies said criminal obtained by illegal activity could have been used to buy his house/car/weapons. Even though I know that's a scam too, I can understand the justification they use.

......the same rule doesn't apply to sexual perverts. Child Molesters aren't profiting from their illegal activity and using those illegal funds to, "enhance the business", if you will, like the drug dealer and his fancy spinning rims and chrome plated 9mm.

I dunno about that. I saw on a Court TV special that there is actually an underground market for child pornography and recorded media of such dispicable actions taking place and it is apparently as profitable as the illegal drug market.

Unfortunately, it seems that child molesters can financially profit from their crimes.

You can get whatever law you want passed by claiming it's "for the children" or that it helps solve that HUGE problem we have with online predators.

Three post in a row
 

You three guys better stop before you go blind :rotflol:
Attachment 333
see how they run :laugh:

What did the brown mouse say to the white mouse?????:D :eek:

While both are despicable, trafficking child pornography is considerably different than meeting a minor for a sexual encounter. Just like selling drugs and using drugs are different. Notice smoking pot isn't illegal, possession is, just like meeting a minor for a sexual encounter isn't illegal, the ACT of having sex with a minor is illegal.

In most cases an illegal activity has to be taking place before the perp can be arrested....like the "13 year old girl" agrees to give him some nude photos....if the guy shows up, then he's guilty of attempted trafficking of illegal goods and can be arrested on the spot.

1. You can't smoke marijuana without possessing it, a law against consumption would be superfluous.

2. Regarding soliciting sex from minors

>just like meeting a minor for a sexual encounter isn't illegal, the ACT of having sex with a minor is illegal.

That's just flat-out wrong. Meeting a minor for a sexual encounter is definitely illegal, even if the encounter never takes place and even if the minor isn't really a minor. Just ask Mike Sieve.

LA Revised Statute 14§81.3. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor

A. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor is committed when a person eighteen years of age or older knowingly contacts or communicates, through the use of electronic textual communication, with a person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen or a person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen, for the purpose of or with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the person to engage or participate in sexual conduct or a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), or with the intent to engage or participate in sexual conduct in the presence of the person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen, or person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen.

It's also a Federal crime:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 117

§ 2422. Coercion and enticement

(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

that last bit ? does that mean someone who doesn't look 18 but could in fact be 18 ? ??

Whoops, forgot the second part of the Federal statute, the one most used against Internet pervs:

(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

Any pothead can walk up to any cop in America reeking of pot and admit to it's use and cannot be arrested for anything more substantial than public intoxication.

The difference between possessing and smoking is that if you are not caught with drugs on your person or in your vehicle ,then you have essentially "not" committed a drug violation regardless of admission or level of intoxication.

Try again.

Well that IS nice to know, but it still doesn't show the perp making a profit from his crime therefore I can't justify "stealing" any of his property

>Try again.


OK, I'll go slower.

>The difference between possessing and smoking is that if you are not caught with drugs on your person or in your vehicle ,then you have essentially "not" committed a drug violation regardless of admission or level of intoxication.

If a court can prove that you smoked marijuana then they have met the standard for possession of marijuana and you could be convicted of that crime:

LA R.S. 40§966.

C. Possession. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner or as provided in R.S. 40:978, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this Part.

Your non-sequitur about walking up to cops has nothing to do with whether or not it is against the law to smoke marijuana, a statement you originally made in support of a point (that "meeting a minor for a sexual encounter isn't illegal") that turned out to be untrue, anyway. Admitting to a cop that you previously smoked marijuana would garner the exact same result as admitting to a cop that you previously had a bag of unsmoked marijuana in your pocket.

As a practical matter I can't imagine many jurisdictions would waste the resources to prosecute a possession case like that, but the fact remains that you can't smoke marijuana without possessing it, so the act of smoking is covered by the statute. As is the act of licking marijuana, dancing with marijuana, or shoving marijuana in your ear.

Whooo, go JOE ! :bravo::goodpost2::funnypost2::rotflmao::wino: :banana: :spit:

Well see thats the thing. If a pothead walks up to a cop reekin of weed and admits to usin it, the cop then has somethin called "probable cause", and once he has that, he (the cop) is then free to take any number of actions that could ultimately lead to an arrest for somethin MUCH more substantial than public intoxication. Maybe said pothead has some rollin papers in his wallet, or a pipe (possession of paraphenalia). This is why ya dont see too many stoners strollin up to the nearest cop to tell him all about the wicked **** he just smoked.

That sounds about right. :D The trigger-happy Bossier cops around here would just bust him and prove it later. ;)

I know!!!!!!I know!!!!!!:banana:

Bill Clinton admitted to smoking pot, Einstein. Never came up during his impeachment.

Now why do you reckon every single Republican ignored this fact during the Clinton impeachment hearings if smoking constitutes possession, and therefore a crime?

Here's a clue, smoking DOES NOT constitute possession.

Now if you care to show a court case where someone was convicted of possession simple because the court proved they were a user, then I'm all ears.....errr eyes.

"Forgetting" you have paraphernalia on you is not the same as NOT having paraphernalia on you.

My contention is that "smoking" is not illegal, not that possession of paraphernalia is legal. Obviously being stupid in front of a cop constitutes reasonable suspicion. The purpose of the example was to show that even extreme situations won't result in a drug arrest without physical drug evidence.

So how about those Online Sexual Predators??

As a parent, I hope they hunt them all down and lock em up. I love the watch Dateline where they lure the predator to a house and the predator is expecting a "child". Then bam all of a sudden it's Stone Phillips or somebody. It's great to see them with the handcuffs on and getting carted off to jail. Serves them right. The scary thing is how many of them are out there just lurking all over the Internet.

And I'm tellin ya you're wrong. The police can arrest you for "disturbing the peace", which pretty much amounts to whatever the cop says "disturbing the peace" is. Admittedly its a misdemeanor just like public intoxication, but there doesnt need to be any physical evidence. They can arrest you for just about any damn thing, which is not to say that you'll be indicted, much less convicted of any crime. Police have extremely broad powers, including the power to ruin your day or make your life miserable. Its never a good idea to piss off a cop.

I'll say it again

You can't be given a DRUG CHARGE without tangible drug evidence.

Neither being high nor admission to use constitutes possession and no amount of being stupid in front of a cop will change that.

Looks like you said "CANNOT BE ARRESTED" to me. You seem to make these kinds of mistakes alot. Since you like splittin hairs so much, you should try to be a lil more circumspect.

Well I'm remonstrated
Outdated I really want to be over-rated
I'm a brain and I'm a smasher
I'm not a loser and I ain't no crasher
I got the boys to make the noise
Won't ever let up
Hope it annoys you
Join the pack
Fill the crack
Well now you're here
There's no way back

Smash your brain! Metal Health'll drive you mad
Smash your brain! Metal Health'll drive you mad

Admitting to use constitutes admitting to possession.

The truly disgusting aspect is you even quoted the statement and STILL tried to lie about it's meaning by taking a phrase out of context specifically for the purpose of manipulation. The ENTIRE sentence reads, and I quote"

"Any pothead can walk up to any cop in America reeking of pot and admit to it's use and cannot be arrested for anything more substantial than public intoxication."

Apparently questioning your intelligence rather than your motive was a mistake on my part. Even you can't be stupid enough to NOT realize what you were doing.

Ok, show evidence of just one case where any American was convicted on American soil of a drug possession charge WITHOUT tangible drug evidence being found during the course of "the investigation".

Time for you to put up or shut up......

I see rappers making millions of dollars off the talent of others bands doing the exact same thing you have on a daily basis.

Gee, I wish I was that "creative".

>Ok, show evidence of just one case where any American was convicted on American soil of a drug possession charge WITHOUT tangible drug evidence being found during the course of "the investigation".

I don't know of a case of that ever happening, I doubt it ever has. That, however, wasn't the point of the argument, that was a straw man you brought to the table. The point of the argument was that smoking requires possession, so there is no law against smoking marijuana because it would be superfluous, just as a law against putting it your ear would be superfluous.

Again, your non-sequiturs about cops and Bill Clinton (where the hell did that come from?) aside, the content of your post to which I originally replied was almost completely untrue. That was what I was addressing and that remains proven.

Try paying attention this time.

The point, and I know this for a FACT because I brought it up, Einstein, is that smoking pot is not illegal, possession is, and that even admission of drug use will not result in any type of drug possession charge. I have made this statement more or less in every single post I've made on this topic, so for you to imply that was NOT my point is quite laughable.

Since the wording of the law itself is apparently to complex for you to grasp the subtle difference, I asked you to show evidence to support your theory that smoking constitutes possession and therefore an individual can be arressted for his admission of drug use, and low and behold....you doubt it's ever happened.
Gee, I wonder how I was able to relate a story about Bill Clinton admitting to smoking pot, and not being arrested, into a conversation about the legality of drug use vs. drug possession.

This reminds of a past post on the lottery..

A + B = C

To smoke it you must posses it. On the hand, you can be high but not in possesion... Maybe that helps the squabbling:confused:

Personally I don't understand WHY there is a squabble.

If you are not caught in possession then you cannot be charged with possession. To imply otherwise is pure stupidity....

That seems to be a way of life.... Loopholes!

I suppose this could be considered a loophole of sorts, but historically speaking, the treasury Dept. was in charge drug enforcement. As a result most of the laws focused on possession/sale of taxable good (yes there is a marijuana stamp). Without the government seal as commonly found on tobacco and alcohol, possession of more than a certain amount of pot constituted tax evasion....and since the government no longer approved the sale of marijuana, no one had a marijuana stamp. Possession = crime, not consumption.