Originally Posted by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman
NO ONE is responsible for anyone elses suicide but the person who committed the act.
NO ONE is responsible for anyone elses suicide but the person who committed the act.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
NO ONE is responsible for anyone elses suicide but the person who committed the act.
Fair enough! I can dig that........but there is an extent that you should be able to push someone....in this case, I do agree.....witch hunt as it may have been, this guy was a pile of scum, and he deserved it.
In a case....hmmm....AH! Take the Megan case, where this girl was unstable, and others knew it, and pushed her TO it....even saying she should KILL herself...then to me, they SHOULD be held accountable. But I get your point.
Evidently you don't. My brother shot himself in my backyard 5 years ago July 10. His ex-wife was trying to put him in jail over $265.00 in child support. Should I have sued her for a decision he made? I think not. Ultimately HE made the decision. She is not liable.
The Megan case is a different situation completely than an adult female under false pretenses pushing a girl she knew to be unstable to commit suicide. Its apples and oranges.
In my mind, if this idiot who killed himself had not yet molested a child, the clock was ticking on him raping someones 13 year old girl. The DA chose to file a warrant. Dateline pursued him because the American public is sick and tired of cases like Jessica Lundsford being all over the news. Put the blame where it belongs. IF it was a witch hunt, then he certainly had on a pointy black hat and his disgusting ass was headed for a damned broom.
In reality, that's a huge assumption to make. Lots of people entertain the idea of doing something without ever doing it.In my mind, if this idiot who killed himself had not yet molested a child, the clock was ticking on him raping someones 13 year old girl.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
And wasn't he chatting with boys? Just saying. I think lots of things I wouldn't do. Like kill my ex husband. Unfortunately he is still very much alive.
Evidently you don't understand yourself. You're contradicting yourself already. Apples and Oranges? But you said NO ONE is responsible for it except for the one who does it. So according to that, shouldn't the Megan case be the same thing?
I DO get what you're saying, and you're right TO A DEGREE. My best friend killed himself on August 19th, four years ago. It flipped my world, and I wanted to blame everyone but him, but ultimately, you're right, he was the one at fault. He made the decision. ANYONE with reason, or the ability to have rational thought, as MEGAN had, should understand the consequences of suicide, and the fact that it's the end of things. As for your brother? He is in the same boat with the pedo, sure, in the fact that he took the easy way out because he didn't want to go to jail. Shame on his ex for trying to JAIL him, but I agree that she's not liable.
Now, hypothetically, if he was depressed, and was ill with this, to the point where he was deemed unstable, and was a possible suicide case, and his ex pushed him to DO it? Told him to fuck off, he should kill himself, or even suggested it in some other way? Then she should. There comes a point where minds aren't stable enough, and stronger ones should be held to a higher degree of accountability to protect them. But that, Im assuming, wasn't the case. So I agree with you that she shouldn't have been.
My friend? Tried suicide three times, the fourth was successful. Had ANYONE, during the time where everyone was trying to help him out of his manic depression, told him he SHOULD die? They should be held partially responsible for his death.
Please don't tell me I don't understand your point, because I do, whether I agree with it wholeheartedly or not. I don't think YOU understand your own point...that's the problem. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's black and white, and then say something is apples and oranges. According to your first statement, it's either all oranges or all apples.
And this was a witch hunt. Let' be clear about that. Shit as he may have been, it was a witch hunt. Only he was a real witch, in that sense. It was justified. Don't confuse when I say witch hunt with me not agreeing with the hunt...Could I be convinced that Dateline shouldn't have had to spend a red cent? Certainly. I am for this man's death. I could be swayed, and you've made me rethink my post, and that's a nice thing, I'm glad you challenged me. BUt when I concede to you, don't tell me I'm not digging what you say when I do, and that I don't understand what you're saying, especially when you come out and contradict to a point, your original statement.
It's an assumption, yes. Not a huge one, in my mind, if this guy was already talking sexually with what he thought to be a child....but I agree....some definitely straddle the boundaries, without ever going over.
I'm not sure about this one, but he's dead, so it's a good thing we'll never find out, because if the answer was yes, some kid pays the price.
This case has been discussed locally on the radio (I'm in the DFW area where this took place) and some details came out that have not been widely reported. I just want to toss some of them out to see how it may alter some opinions. I have no details as to how accurate the information may be.
The guy that killed himself was said to have been working on a book about how kids are stalked on the net and how parents might protect kids from that stalking. He also is said to have talked to others about how his "research" methods could cause him a world of trouble if discovered and taken as he were stalking kids.
He was said to be very concerned by the fact that should his methods be discovered his career and life would be over just by being accused of what he was attempting to combat.
IMO, if any of those things are true he made a big mistake in not making sure everyone in his office and the local cop shop knew he was doing this.
It is said by his sister that in effect, his worst nightmare came true and that drove him to kill himself. She said that given his position, he was well aware that this "charge" true or not was the end of his career.
It also has been said that the DA who filed the warrant, originally had no intentions of going after this guy because he had not showed up, only chatted on line. It is claimed that Dateline pressured him to move on this guy when there really was no case against him.
Even if all of this were true, gargling with bullets is not a way to show the world you are not guilty. I believe it takes a very weak mind to end your own life unless you are terminally ill and in great pain. The lead lobotomy may end your pain, but it creates pain for those that happen to care about you and is the grandest form of selfishness.
Also reported locally, Dateline has aired the last episode of TCAP and has ended production. No reason given as to why. :)
R
Last edited by Harley_Tech; July 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 AM. Reason: Added info
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
That sounds like spin being put out by the family.
Are the transcripts of the online chats in this case available? I wonder if this was a strictly teen chat room or if it was an all age chat room. I would be curious to read them and find out who initiated the sexual content. I would also be interested to read what the supposed minor wrote to see if he gave any clues as to his actual age. If the "minor" did give a clue as to his true age or did initiate the sexual content then it changes everything. A stalking predator becomes a curious gay guy.
Agreed. It's way too convenient.
The article I read that changed my view of this case can be read here:
http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907
It details why Conradt was targeted and what he did. He was pretending to be a 19-year-old talking with an adult pretending to be a sexually aggressive 13-year-old. When it came time for Conradt to meet the 13-year-old, he chose not to and then stopped responding to the "teen's: phone calls and IM's. Dateline got local law enforcement to get SWAT to break into his home.
But it was the final paragraph of this article that got me thinking the most and why I feel that what happened to Bill Conradt was wrong.
Is it possible that Bill Conradt, an adult pretending to be a teenager, might have suspected, correctly, that “Luke” was also an adult pretending? Yes: Everybody knows that the Internet is a swamp of false identities. And is there any evidence that Conradt had ever acted on the longings that his chats illuminated? On the contrary, he chose not to when presented with the opportunity. Was it morally wrong for Bill Conradt to engage in online sex chats with an apparent child? Of course. But did his actions merit the response to them? Before answering this question, a man should take stock of the history of the desires he’s never acted on, and whether he should ever have to defend that history in court, or see it detailed on television.
Last edited by Morbid; July 2nd, 2008 at 07:29 PM.
7 Member(s) thanked for this post
I also read that article today Morbid and agree with you that he was unjustly singled out.
Sad thing about the entire deal is that TCAP may well have ended up making it easier on the predators out there. If their actions cause even one group that actually ferrets out predators, or cause even LEOs to not file charges against them for fear of this type of legal repercussions by their greed and overzealous pursuit of ratings, then they have helped the sick fucks that prey on kids.
While they may have started out with good intentions (MAY HAVE), they should hang their head in shame.
R
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
I personally was involved in the NJ episodes of "Catch a predator", on the Law Enforcement level that is....There is a theory that has been proven over time and the approach we( Law Enforce.) take is action not reaction, and thats what saves a child from years of pain and suffering, or and actual life. I hope I can explain it correctly:
In the sexual predators life there several levels that he/she usually fullfills prior ot the final act of actually sexually assaulting a child. The 1st being fantasy; meaning the thought process of what it would actually be like to be with a child.
The 2nd is starting the actual process of reaching out to underage child and discussing/enticing the child...30% is conducted on the computer, the other 60% is family members that already have gained a childs trust.
The 3rd is where the "catch a predator" teams or Law enforcement get involved. The 3rd is where the predator now has the cofidence to act on what he or she has established utilizing the prior (2) acts of child enticement. In other words, the 3rd and finally act is where the predator actually acts out his/hers fanatasies.
I fully agree L.E. and our approach, I have seen it over and over again in my line of work , childrens lifes turned upside down, emotional wrecks for the sick twisted selfish acts of an adult. We all have our thoughts on this subject, and I'm glad we are in a country that lets us openly discuss such issues, but to those of you who disagree with the current process of finding and arresting Sex predators I hope your child is never a victim, to witness the complete distruction of a child and its family is forever.....
I have no mercy for these sick fuckers and Im glad I get to personally find them and put them away.
Last edited by tbone08742; July 4th, 2008 at 10:47 PM.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Welcome to the site tbone!!
Good on you!
My question is do you feel that TCAP crossed a line here?
I agree LE needs to be proactive, but when the suspect does not act on the invitation to meet, and then cuts off the contact should LE track them down or continue to monitor their actions?
I think that is a tough call because as you said there is a next level that they eventually will move to. I also believe there have to be some that get "spooked" at one level or another and never make to the third level.
This sword has many edges.
R
Thanks for the welcome , not to drag out the subject, I think it could have been handled better then how it was conducted, I coudnt even imagine what went on behind the scenes when they found out who he was. Room for improvement for sure!!!
I guess I should introduce myself on the newbie page.... Thanks Again
Here is a chatlog of the conversations he had with the "minor".
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=inxs00
Three laptops, a cellphone and several computer disks found in the home "all contained pornographic material [and] some included child pornography," says a computer forensic analysis report.
Conradt, after police knocked on his door trying to get him to surrender peaceably, had been busy attempting to destroy evidence against him. Because the police were able to call in a tactical unit, he was unable to destroy all the evidence of his crimes.
http://www.pjfi.org/?opinions=26
I'm not sorry he offed himself.
4 Member(s) thanked for this post
Welcome, Tbone.
Assuming you were personally involved, I'm interested that you chose not to address the issue at hand - Why NBC was forced to settle with the family of the suicide victim.
You mention the three stages that you consider to be the progression of a sex offender. You also mention that stage three is the point at which LE intervenes. I agree with you that LE's intervention at this stage is absolutely appropriate. But that's the issue in question, here.
The suicide victim was a 56 year old man posing as a 19 year old. That fact, coupled with the fact that the man cut off communication with the "minor", despite multiple attempts from the "minor" at continued communication, proves beyond doubt that this man had no intention on acting. We was exercising a fantasy, not soliciting sex. Still, police moved in anyway. Is that not a waste of resources? Should we not be targeting individuals who are actually creating victims? Lord knows, they're out there.
What To Catch A Predator normally does, setting up stings that allow the potential sex offenders to prove intent by coming to a house, is legally and ethically sound, in my opinion. The problem here is that they stepped outside the procedure and went after a man who exhibited no intent whatsoever. It is for this reason that I agree with the settlement.
As for how I disagree with law enforcement is doing - I believe we focus too much effort on possession of child porn and not enough on manufacture of child porn and solicitation. Focusing on possession does not protect anyone, necessarily. There's no evidence that those who possess child porn will eventually go on to pursue children. Manufacturing and solicitation, on the other hand, are where the actual victims are being created. I don't think we should legalize possession, necessarily...But we need to be focusing the bulk of our efforts and resources on the intent to harm children. That's the only problem with how LE currently operates in regard to child sex offenses.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Focusing too much on possession of child pornography? Jesus Fuck, Athena.
WHat are we supposed to do, WAIT for them to commit crimes before we arrest them? And then you criticize stings like this one....
I don't buy that this guy was the victim of shit. He's dead, I'm pleased as punch he is. The more I read about this, and look into this, Dateline and the police dept went overboard, and did this in a completely sensationalistic way...of course...but this guy got his.
FWIW, anyone who possesses child pornography, should go to prison for a very, very long time.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Um, yeah, actually...We're supposed to wait until people commit crimes before we arrest them. :p It's bad jujus when we get into the practice of sentencing people harshly in anticipation that they'll do something worse. By that logic, why not lock assault defendants up for life, before they kill someone? Simply owning child porn is not proof that the person will go on to do worse.
This man showed no intent to meet a minor. Do I feel bad that he's dead? Not particularly. However, I am glad the network was forced to answer for what amounted to unethical practices.
And, yes, I see clear priorities. Namely, that manufacturing, trafficking, distribution and solicitation are worse than possession. Law enforcement resources are not infinite; I just want to see resources allocated appropriately. The worst problems should get the most resources.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Being in possession of child pornography is a crime, though. That's why we arrest them when we find out they do.
And I'm not worried about jujus when it comes to child safety. ;) We don't lock up child porn possessors for raping a child, we lock them up for owning it. It's illegal. Fucking children is reprehensible, and the men and women who MAKE the child pornography are committing terrible crimes when they do, and the people who look at that, purchase it, download it are stimulating that practice, and should be treated as accomplices. If it were up to me, I'd up the crime to not JUST possession, but accomplice to whatever they had...each individual picture. They would be tried as an accomplice to 235 crimes if thats how many separate images they had....
Agreed. Glad he's dead, myself, I don't buy his little experiment. But no matter how I feel about him, it was unethical, so I can understand where you're coming from.This man showed no intent to meet a minor. Do I feel bad that he's dead? Not particularly. However, I am glad the network was forced to answer for what amounted to unethical practices.
Agreed, but I haven't seen where they AREN'T spending more resources to catch those you named, rather than than those who are in possession. Normally, they connect to each other, so it's a fairly safe bet either way. Just because Dateline did what they did, doesn't create a proof that law enforcement aren't looking elsewhere.And, yes, I see clear priorities. Namely, that manufacturing, trafficking, distribution and solicitation are worse than possession. Law enforcement resources are not infinite; I just want to see resources allocated appropriately. The worst problems should get the most resources.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
That's some BUNK logic, legally speaking. Should people who have images of, say, assaults be treated as accomplices, if they have no knowledge of who is being beaten and who is doing the beating? You are advocating punishing someone for something they did not do and couldn't even prevent. That'll never happen.
Furthermore, the argument that the market is creating the demand is limited. I outlined my logic in another thread. Lemme see if I can pull that up, because it's long and I don't want to re-type. :p
Oh, I'm not saying they aren't looking elsewhere. I can't even say with absolute certainty that more resources are being spent on possession than on the other things, it's just a feeling that I get when I read cases like these. I scour the news DAILY, and I hear WAY more about possession stings than I do soliciting, trafficking, manufacturing or distributing stings.Agreed, but I haven't seen where they AREN'T spending more resources to catch those you named, rather than than those who are in possession. Normally, they connect to each other, so it's a fairly safe bet either way. Just because Dateline did what they did, doesn't create a proof that law enforcement aren't looking elsewhere.
I was talking to someone about this just last evening and I mentioned that, actually, they don't necessarily "normally connect to each other". See, with narcotics, the logic is simple: Bust the people holding small amounts and make them tell you where they got it. You'll be lead to a dealer, who may lead you to his dealer, who may lead to a manufacturer or trafficker. Either way, they got it from someone, and they know who. Thanks to information technology and anonymous file exchange services, this isn't the case with child porn. You can get that stuff without having any clue where you got it from, which limits the benefit of going after possession, and certainly limits the benefit of dedicating a disproportionate amount to possession. Ultimately, I can't condone sending anyone who doesn't create a direct victim away for life.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Oh, of course, of course! That's why I said if it were up to me....:) However, its not all that far fetched. People have been accused of accomplices of crimes before, just for having something in possession. With pot, if an amount on possession is enough, it warrants "intent to distribute"...and a passenger in a car can be charged with accomplice. If one does not report a crime, it's precedent, that they can be charged with accomplice.....it's not THAT far fetched. My case is extreme, no less, but Im a believer that extreme situations, such as pedophilia and crimes as a result, deserve extreme measures.
BUt pedophilia is in it's self a different beast other crimes, you understand. I know that you and gprime said that even making them have to REGISTER is oppressive to them, but the failure of you both to see that pedophilia is a mental disease that cannot be remedied or cured, is where your lack of understanding why possession laws in this instance are so important as well. Going to what you said earlier, that they don't NECESSARILY "normally connect to each other"**, is indeed incorrect. If someone who is sexually attracted to children looks at pictures of that, that's a form of masturbation, and it would be fine if it werent against the law and so fundamentally perverse and disgusting. It's a sickness. It's like asking me to NEVER touch a woman, and jerk off for the rest of my life. Sexual urges are intense, and very strong. It can happen, us never laying hand on another being, but it's just not very likely. It's easy for us to say we would be able to withstand the urge, because all of us go get laid sometimes....and we can hire hookers if we can't.
People who engage in masturbating over children are likely to commit sexual acts upon them. ANd it's foolish to compare paedophiles with drug users. It's not the same AT ALL, and not even close.
But you definitely implied it.Oh, I'm not saying they aren't looking elsewhere. I can't even say with absolute certainty that more resources are being spent on possession than on the other things
Understood. I agree, and hope that we really are spending a ton on things like these. I imagine, that these kinds of things are extremely tough to pin down, and stop., it's just a feeling that I get when I read cases like these. I scour the news DAILY, and I hear WAY more about possession stings than I do soliciting, trafficking, manufacturing or distributing stings.
I was talking to someone about this just last evening and I mentioned that, actually, they don't necessarily "normally connect to each other".** See, with narcotics, the logic is simple: Bust the people holding small amounts and make them tell you where they got it. You'll be lead to a dealer, who may lead you to his dealer, who may lead to a manufacturer or trafficker. Either way, they got it from someone, and they know who. Thanks to information technology and anonymous file exchange services, this isn't the case with child porn.
I'm not talking about porn being connected with just kid buying...that's a niche that mostly the rich and industry involved get into...and of course, the internet is great for that...Im talking about simple molestations here and there. Not just brutal rapes and child slave market...child porn DOES connect to that, by the simple fact that the pedophiles in possession masturbate and get stimulated sexually by children themselves. If you want to link it somehow to narcotics, it's like saying guys who own pipes and bowls don't connect to smoking dope.
You just said for LIFE. I would of course, love to send pedos, ALL OF THEM away for life, even those in possession of child porn, but I know I cant, and dont expect it. A question, then....do you agree that someone should go to prison for possession?You can get that stuff without having any clue where you got it from, which limits the benefit of going after possession, and certainly limits the benefit of dedicating a disproportionate amount to possession. Ultimately, I can't condone sending anyone who doesn't create a direct victim away for life.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Man, you're going to lecture me about inaccurate comparisons during this post? Wow. :p
1.) No, it's not like that at all. You're comparing a normal, socially acceptable, legal relationship to an abnormal, socially condemned, illegal relationship. There are lots of people with deviant sexual tendencies who never act upon them. Does the ability to masturbate to image X in the privacy of their own home encourage them to seek it out in real life or enable them to avoid doing so? I don't know. Either way, I think you underestimate the power of social stigma.
2.) No, again, it's not like that at all. Smoking utensils are for the specific use of smoking whatever drug their designed to accommodate. They are for facilitating drug use. Compromising pictures of young children in no way, shape or form facilitate child rape.
Other points - gprime and I don't fail to register that legitimate pedophilia is a mental illness. I feel comfortable in speaking for the both of us when I say that we understand the compulsion. Where we differ, however, is that we don't feel comfortable for applying harsh sentencing for one thing simply because it could possibly eventually lead to another. We can only prevent so much before imposing on individual liberty, and there's a reason why our Constitution dictates that punishments should fit crimes.
No, I don't believe someone should be incarcerated for simply possession of any kind. My opinion on the matter is static; I don't believe incarceration is for people who have not created any direct victims. I believe we have enough violent criminals and thieves in this country to reserve detention for them. Fines, counseling and community service can be levied upon everyone else.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
So in short, you believe owning child pornography should be legal?
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
No. Didn't you read that post?
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
They should be fined then? Hm. Ludicrous. But ok.
These guys acutally physically show up at a "childs" residence, to me that is serious. I hated this show so much because I was tired of the "we were supposed to hang out and have some tacos" bullshit... Some have been caught like this repeatedly and they aren't going to stop.
I do not agree with this settlement at all. This man violated the law, is a sick fuck and then is such a pussy he can't live with himself....who cares he commited suicide! He did our job for us, thank you!
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Why we make sure we bust assholes who own child pornography, and why most of the time, it means theyre dangerous.
http://www.tv-links.cc/redir4.php?l=...ZhdXRvcGxheT0x
Good watch.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
We can't even say "most of the time". That's just speculation. To my knowledge, there has been no research performed to determine what rate of child porn possessors go on to victimize a child.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks