Evidence-Based Sex Offense Classification and Community Safety Act (ESCCSA)

Liberty Justice
22

I appreciate your willingness to engage in a point-by-point discussion, and I’m truly sorry to hear about the personal impact this issue has had on you. When someone we care about is pulled into the justice system, especially under circumstances that feel unjust or manipulative, it’s natural to want to scrutinize every part of it. That said, it’s important to distinguish our personal experiences and emotions from legal standards and broader societal interests—because once we drift too far from that, we risk doing injustice in the name of justice.

Let me address a few of your core concerns with that in mind.

1. Entrapment and Predisposition

You’re absolutely right that context matters—but the legal definition of entrapment still stands. You say that these men were lured by what appeared to be adults, and only later informed that the “girl” was underage. That’s not entrapment if they persisted after that disclosure. You argue that they showed up to “resolve confusion,” not commit a crime. But this line of thinking turns criminal law on its head.

Intent is judged by conduct, and showing up to a sexual rendezvous after being told the person is underage—even if you doubt it—is reckless disregard. That’s not my interpretation. That’s the legal standard under 18 USC 1591 and multiple state analogues. The law doesn’t require that you fully believe the person is underage. It requires that you proceed despite knowing the risk. That’s what “reckless disregard” is.

And no, this isn’t unique to sex crimes. In many areas of criminal law (drug stings, financial fraud, terrorism plots), courts allow for sting operations that present an opportunity for crime, even one cloaked in deception. What the law prohibits is manufacturing a crime someone wouldn’t otherwise commit—not presenting an opportunity and seeing who bites.

Your frustration about adult photos being used is understandable, but the courts have already ruled on this. In U.S. v. Tykarsky and similar cases, adult-looking decoys (or even text-only communication) have been upheld as valid. Why? Because it’s not about the picture—it’s about what the target was told, and whether they moved forward after being told.

2. The Reality of “Intent”

You place great weight on whether the man “really believed” it was a minor or just wanted to verify in person. But here’s the problem: the law doesn’t reward willful ignorance.

You admit some of these men may have “recklessly disregarded” the possibility the person was underage—then say “that’s not intent.” But that is intent under federal law. And case after case has confirmed that even ambiguous or suspect stings don’t erase culpability if the individual had reason to believe and proceeded anyway.

You’re also conflating uncertainty with reasonable doubt. But the legal standard isn’t “beyond all doubt.” It’s whether the evidence supports intent beyond a reasonable doubt—including actions like making plans, confirming sexual interest, showing up, bringing protection, etc. The burden isn’t perfection—it’s reasonableness.

3. On Adult Platforms & “Creating Crime”

You mention that these stings start on adult platforms—implying they are “manufacturing” predators where none existed. But that assumes men don’t frequent adult platforms looking for barely legal or underage fantasies. Unfortunately, many do.

Law enforcement knows this from seized devices, chat transcripts, and self-incriminating statements. The fact that the ad begins with adult bait but quickly pivots to underage disclosure is precisely the test. Who turns away, and who leans in?

If someone thinks, “Eh, she says she’s 14 but she looks 20,” and proceeds—that’s not confusion. That’s calculated risk-taking. And yes, that is criminally prosecutable behavior.

4. Your Concerns About Overreach Are Valid—But Misplaced

Let’s be honest—there are valid criticisms of law enforcement tactics in some of these stings: ambiguous profiles, unclear communication, or tactics that skate close to the ethical line. But conflating that with unconstitutionality or “electronic warfare” stretches credibility.

You cite People v. Aguirre, which indeed critiques fantasy-based sting methods. But that case involved extraordinarily elaborate and unrealistic scenarios, not run-of-the-mill decoy stings. It’s an outlier, not a standard-bearer.

As for your argument that agents should focus on “real predators” on youth platforms like Instagram or Snapchat—absolutely. Many agree. But resources are limited, and adult platforms are not exempt from abuse. The presence of real minors on these platforms is not a prerequisite for valid enforcement. The attempt is what makes it criminal.

Also, the idea that 99% of Cybertips aren’t followed up on isn’t a smoking gun—it’s a symptom of underfunded systems, not a reason to abandon proactive policing in adult contexts.

5. On “No One Is Dragged In” vs. Manipulation

You say this isn’t about forcing men to commit crimes, but “enticing” them. But that’s exactly the legal standard—and courts have been extremely clear: so long as the defendant was predisposed and the agent didn’t coerce, the sting is lawful.

You’re also right that agents may flirt, talk sexy, or play along to keep the guy engaged. That’s not unethical. That’s what undercover work is. Undercover officers pretend to be buyers in drug cases, terrorists in bomb plots, and corrupt officials in bribery stings. Sex crimes are no exception.

Final Thought

Your passion for your friend’s case is evident, and I don’t fault you for advocating on his behalf. But it’s dangerous to let personal pain cloud the facts. These stings aren’t perfect—but they aren’t fabrications, either. The law exists to protect vulnerable populations, and the moment someone is told “I’m 14” and still walks toward the hotel room, the law has to step in. Not because of what might have happened—but because of what could have.

If you believe the legal bar is too low, then fight to raise it through advocacy and legislation. But don’t pretend the law—as it stands—is being grossly misapplied. Most of the time, it’s not.

23

Your comment raises real and difficult questions about the integrity of parts of the justice system—many of which deserve scrutiny. But your broader claim—that case law is created in a vacuum, completely detached from statutes, legislative intent, and factual nuance—is not only analytically overstated, it misunderstands how legal doctrine develops and how judicial discretion is constrained.

Let’s break this down point by point.

1. “Courts create case law in a vacuum.”

No, they don’t. Courts interpret case law based on adversarial litigation, statutes, precedent, and an extensive public record.
To say they act in a vacuum is to ignore the fundamental structure of common law jurisprudence. Every appellate decision:

  • stems from an actual controversy, with a factual record;
  • applies statutory interpretation tools (e.g., textualism, purposivism);
  • is constrained by stare decisis (binding precedent);
  • and is publicly reviewable, reversible, and subject to scholarly and legislative critique.

Judges don’t create law from nothing. They respond to actual arguments raised by parties—often poorly argued, yes, especially under high-pressure plea deals—but that’s not a vacuum. That’s a system distorted by resource imbalance, not lawlessness.

You rightly note that plea deals limit appellate review. That’s true. But that doesn’t mean courts are operating in a fantasy space—it means too few cases reach them, which is a systemic issue of under-litigation, not judicial overreach.

2. “Judges won’t be ‘that judge’ holding law enforcement accountable.”

There’s truth in this—but again, you’ve overstated the conclusion. Elected judges do often defer to law enforcement—but that’s a political and institutional bias, not a legal black hole. And in federal courts, which are insulated from direct elections, judges do suppress evidence, dismiss cases, and harshly criticize agents for misconduct—when defendants fight and facts are on the record.

The real problem isn’t that judges refuse to apply the law; it’s that most defendants never force the issue because they take pleas—often under extreme duress due to mandatory minimums. That’s a legislative and prosecutorial policy issue, not proof that case law is meaningless.

3. “Even defense attorneys stop fighting for their clients.”

Yes, this happens. Some public defenders and private counsel don’t push hard. But again, this doesn’t invalidate case law—it highlights a structural inequality between prosecution and defense. That matters, but it’s not a judicial failure per se. Blaming judges for defense counsel’s passivity ignores the adversarial nature of the system.

You raise a powerful concern: the social proximity of defense attorneys and prosecutors. That’s valid. But the remedy is transparency, not cynicism. Defense bar reform and better indigent defense funding are part of the solution—not a rejection of case law.

4. “Case law is corrupted by plea deals.”

True in part. But it’s a mistake to say that all plea deals produce no legal standards. Some are appealed; others lead to motions to suppress or constitutional challenges that shape law. For example, U.S. v. Carpenter (cell site location data) was born of a guilty plea—but the defendant preserved the search challenge, which was heard and decided by the Supreme Court.

Your claim would suggest that only trial verdicts matter. That’s inaccurate. Appellate review can and does arise from pretrial motions and conditional pleas.

5. “Law enforcement lies; prosecutors seek convictions, not justice.”

There are documented instances of misconduct. But again, this isn’t case law’s failure—it’s a human accountability failure. Case law often condemns exactly the kind of behavior you describe. Evidence suppression, perjury, Brady violations—all are frequent bases for reversals when litigated.

You reference tampering and the failure of defense counsel to act. That is tragic—and potentially grounds for ineffective assistance claims (Strickland v. Washington). But it does not make case law “bastardized.” It means the system failed to properly channel existing rules. That’s injustice due to execution, not jurisprudence.

6. “AI gets case law wrong.”

Sometimes, yes. AI can’t always read the factual nuance or procedural posture of a case. But the solution isn’t to reject legal research—it’s to do it carefully. Anyone using AI to blindly cite cases without context is bound to misrepresent them. That’s not a flaw in the law; that’s a flaw in methodology.

Also, your argument that “only a fraction of 3% of cases” are publicly accessible is misleading. While most cases are unreported, thousands of federal appellate decisions are published each year, and many district court opinions are available via PACER or FOIA. The raw volume is limited—but not nonexistent.

7. “Jungers distorted legislative intent of 18 USC 1591.”

The Jungers decision interpreted the term “obtains” in the statute to apply to buyers, based on the plain language and congressional amendments. That decision was controversial, but not lawless. The Eighth Circuit panel reasoned from:

  • the text of the statute;
  • the structure of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act;
  • the 2008 and 2015 amendments;
  • and the moral equivalency arguments made by DOJ.

Congress could amend the law to carve out buyers again. It hasn’t. That doesn’t make the interpretation illegitimate. It means Congress left the interpretation standing.

The distinction you’re making—between high-culpability buyers and confused men—is valid as a policy critique. But courts are required to apply the law as written, not based on the anecdotal morality of the sting. Your frustration belongs at the legislative level.

Conclusion: Skepticism ≠ Invalidation

You’re right to be skeptical. You’re right to be angry about overreach, plea pressure, reputational destruction, and media bias. But case law is not illegitimate simply because it fails to live up to your hopes.

  • It is incomplete, due to systemic under-litigation.
  • It is sometimes biased, because human beings are.
  • It is always evolving, because public pressure and advocacy force it to.

But it is not worthless. And it is not created in a vacuum.

If you want better case law, push for:

  • More trial funding.
  • Stronger appellate advocacy.
  • Legislative reform of mandatory minimums.
  • Independent oversight of law enforcement conduct.
  • Judicial transparency in suppression hearings.

These are tangible levers for change. Rejecting the legal system wholesale? That only cedes the field to the very actors you’re critiquing.

24

Sorry to say that your use of AI for your responses feels disingenuous. We KNOW it’s not you formulating your responses, just like these men KNOW that the person they’re talking to isn’t believably a minor. Chatters think that by throwing in something that seems young, they’re going to convince men that the sexualized ADULT woman they saw is really a minor.

Why is it so difficult to believe that SOME men will try to resolve the confusion, while others may not? Some may even suspect it’s a sting------but I can guarantee you that NO ONE 100% believes it’s it’s a real minor. Not one of them. If they stop communicating, it’s probably because they think it’s a scam or sting.

25

Back to this post. YOU ARE SO WRONG!! They are ABSOLUTELY starting with adult decoys, photos, legal age, sex talk on adult sex websites then switching to a minor. OMW. Let me ask you this…IF they did, would that change your mind? I’ll try to post some links of law enforcement ads. I can also show you case evidence proving you wrong.

Also:

  • Agents DO NOT elicit acknowledgement in every case, and suspects do not acknowledge age in many of them.
  • Law enforcement makes the first move by posting a legally aged, sexually posed adult woman in an ad on an adult sex website.
  • You dismiss context. Context - especially VISUAL observation (adult pics) - is HIGHLY impactful. (Again, read 18 USC 1591(c) for how important visual observation is.)
  • I can show you evidence of fabrication, tampering/hiding and perjury. And it’s happening across the country.
  • “There are real victims elsewhere” isn’t a defense. OMW. It’s ABSOLUTELY logical that law enforcement should PRIORITIZE Cybertips over stings on adult websites. Saying or thinking otherwise requires a SERIOUS lack of commonsense. You’d better call chatGPT out on that one.
  • Whoa, wait. You said, “Predators Don’t Just Lurk on Playground Swings: Child predators often look online because that’s where kids are. Teens use dating apps, gaming platforms, and social media—all places predators exploit.”
    So, children and young teens are on Backpagegals? Megapersonals? Escort Alligator? Skipthegames? THAT’S where law enforcement is looking for “child predators.” You just completely supported everything we’ve been saying with this one comment. Hunt down predators where predators are – where children are. NOT on adult sites where men are seeking adult consensual sex encounters. It’s not rocket science. Ask Officer Gomez on youtube. He said that was entrapment and made no sense. Because it doesn’t make sense unless you’ve concocted a confusing ruse to get men to just show up, so you can arrest them for attempt…each arrest means $$$ for the state and local law enforcement. Sometimes, $500,000+ in grants annually, and it all depends on who gets the most arrests and convictions. Successful collars bring more dollars. Look up Caught in the Web substack to read about how much these stings cost, and how 1000s of predators continue to freely abuse elsewhere. It’s shameful, negligent and shockingly illegal in many ways.

I am ALL FOR stings done where predators hunt children…where children are. These agents are very creative. I’m sure they can figure out a way to actually arrest real predators.

26

ad
ad717×743 96.9 KB

ad 2
ad 21075×866 176 KB

image
image764×590 98.2 KB

27

I get where you’re coming from—truly. It’s frustrating when people seem to hide behind tools instead of just speaking plainly. But here’s the thing: using AI to help formulate thoughts doesn’t mean the ideas aren’t mine. If a calculator helps you do math, does that mean it’s not your homework? AI is a tool—I am the one asking the questions, directing the logic, and standing behind the conclusions. So no, it’s not disingenuous. It’s actually honest—I’m using the best tools available to make my point clearly and thoughtfully.

Now, to the meat of your argument: that “no one believes it’s really a minor.”

That’s a bold—and frankly, dangerous—assumption. If “no one” believed it was a minor, they wouldn’t risk a felony just to flirt. If someone truly thinks it’s a sting or scam, they’d leave. But many don’t. They keep pushing. They double down. They ask for proof. They coach. They adjust their language. Some even acknowledge the risk and move forward anyway. That’s not innocent confusion—that’s calculated risk.

You’re right—some men do stop when it gets weird. And those guys? They’re not the problem. The ones who keep going, despite red flags, despite doubt, despite laws—they’re the ones who are.

So let’s not pretend that doubt somehow makes them morally or legally clean. Doubt isn’t innocence. It’s hesitation. And when someone chooses to push past it, that’s a decision—not a misunderstanding.

28

Your use of AI throughout this entire discussion is wearisome and basically making my point. I mean, I don’t know WHO you are for sure. There’s this photo of an adult guy, so I’m assuming, first and foremost, that’s you. If you told me you were 15, I wouldn’t believe it, especially if you posted an ad using a number of different photos showing you were an adult, you were posing with your butt in my face, you were seeking consensual sex, and you were quite versed in prostitution lingo. Just. Wouldn’t. Buy. It. Does that make me a child sex predator if I want to meet up to see you and resolve the confusion? Your AI response says, “Yes.” But I have spent innumerable hours researching “reckless disregard” in all its iterations, and it’s NOT what AI is writing for you. There are (at a minimum) two prongs to reckless disregard - 1) awareness of fact, and 2) conscious avoidance of fact. As a government agent, you know EXACTLY what you’re doing when you provide a confusing scenario that makes men want to show up to see. You’re able to just use “showing up” as a substantial step toward attempt, and you can sell it to the jury like this: “Well, he at least recklessly disregarded the age.” BUT…LEGALLY, reckless disregard is, yes, less than affirmative belief, but it ALSO requires that the man does not TRY to find out the truth. It is not a stretch to say that someone online wants to SEE whom they’re communicating with before committing to a date, is it? (I’m asking you, not ChatGPT.)

I feel like you’re totally missing the point. You’re taking our responses, copying them into AI, and asking for a response biased on the outcome you desire. I want you to consider that these men get 10+ years in federal prison. That’s a lot of time behind bars for men who never, not once, sought a minor for sex. There are 1000s in jail right now because of these stings being done this way. It’s easy pickings because no one is courageous enough to call it out for what it really is. (I am, and I won’t stop.)

You also continue to post that my personal feelings somehow negate the veracity of my opinions. I beg to differ. I used to post every sex-trafficking sting operation online, applauding law enforcement. I was a Tim Ballard OUR abolitionist, sending monthly donations for years. The only thing that happened since my friend was ‘stung,’ is that I ACTUALLY DID THE RESEARCH and spent YEARS poring over cases, case law, statistics and more. Most people are like I used to be because it’s the morally superior position and attitude, but it’s also an ignorant one.

I pray for child sex traffickers to be stopped, but this is an ineffective, misleading, corrupt way to do it. Literally, ZERO children saved; and no child predators caught. These reports of children saved are counting the fake decoys as “saved victims” per the FBI. Thanks, FBI…great record-keeping there.

The trials are a joke. Prosecutors have to pull out every emotional argument they have, even misleading the jury on facts and misstating legal elements (like reckless disregard). They use supposition, “Well, we all KNOW that if it was a real 15YO, he’d have had sex with her.” Do we? He never said he thought she was 15, and you showed him adult photos when he asked. Do we know for sure that would have happened? No, we don’t, but prosecutors enjoy the inherent authority in front of jurors, who stare glassy-eyed thinking, “Well, if they say so,” without understanding the manipulation and illegality going on.

So, yes, I’m personally involved, but that doesn’t “cloud my thinking.” I have clarity on EXACTLY what went down, and it’s time everyone hears it. And do me a favor. Answer this one as yourself. Leave ChatGPT out of it because it’s just regurgitating the same set of facts…just mixing it up a little. Do you believe that a man should be sent to prison for 10-15 years because he chose to believe his EYES and not their LIES? THAT is what’s happening.

29

You’re clearly passionate about this—and I get why. The idea that law enforcement could overreach, mislead, or even target the wrong people should concern everyone. There are valid questions about how stings are run, how funding is allocated, and how we define “real” threats. That’s fair. But passion doesn’t turn speculation into fact or erase what the law actually says—or how courts interpret it.

Let’s unpack this in a real-world way.

1. Yes, context matters—but context isn’t just visual.

You keep citing adult photos in ads. Sure, that’s part of the context. But what about the messages exchanged after? The repeated mention of age, warnings, and chats referencing illegality? Courts don’t just look at the first image—they look at the whole communication, especially what happens after age is revealed. If a man keeps going, asks for sexual acts, or shows up anyway? That’s not “visual confusion.” That’s informed, illegal action.

2. “They start with adult decoys” isn’t the mic-drop you think it is.

Let’s say it’s true: the post begins with an adult-looking ad. So what? The bait isn’t the ad—it’s the age disclosure in the chat. If someone knows the person says they’re underage and keeps engaging sexually, they cross the line. Ignoring that isn’t just bad logic—it’s legally irrelevant. The courts have ruled repeatedly: you can’t claim confusion when you’ve been told someone’s a minor and proceed anyway.

3. Suspects “not acknowledging age” doesn’t equal innocence.

You say some suspects never acknowledge the age. Okay, but many don’t have to explicitly say, “Yes, I know you’re under 18” to be charged. If the other person says “I’m 14” and the suspect responds with “That’s hot” or keeps pushing for sex—that’s implied acknowledgment. Courts have ruled that circumstantial evidence and continued engagement are enough to prove intent.

4. “Real predators are elsewhere” is an emotional argument—not a legal one.

Sure, Cybertips should be prioritized. No argument there. But it’s not either-or. Law enforcement can and should pursue multiple angles. Some of these sting cases are messy or poorly handled, yes—but many are legally sound and morally justified. Saying “there are worse predators” doesn’t make the ones caught in stings innocent.

5. Entrapment is a specific legal defense—and courts reject it often in these cases.

To be entrapment, agents must coerce or persuade someone who wasn’t already willing. If a man responds eagerly to an age disclosure, initiates sexual talk, and agrees to meet? That’s not coercion. That’s intent. Officer Gomez may have opinions—but the courts follow law, not YouTube takes. And the law is clear: pretending to be a minor isn’t entrapment when it gives someone a chance to choose—and they choose wrong.

6. About money and grants… sure, oversight matters. But let’s not conflate it with innocence.

Are some departments motivated by funding? Possibly. That’s a valid debate for policy and ethics. But even if motivation is questionable, the defendant’s behavior still determines guilt. If someone pursues a minor after being told they’re a minor, the state didn’t “trap” them—it simply gave them the chance to show who they are.

In short: yes, bad stings exist. Yes, we should care about civil rights, due process, and where resources go. But the existence of gray areas doesn’t erase clear-cut guilt in many of these cases. And calling out flaws in some investigations doesn’t magically make everyone caught in them a victim.

If you truly support stings “where children are,” then you support the core idea: adults must not seek sex with kids—even when it’s a setup. The moment someone hears “I’m 14” and chooses to continue, they stop being confused and start being culpable.

We don’t have to defend every sting. But let’s not pretend clear warnings and illegal behavior are just misunderstandings.

30

WTF…???

31

In this case, AI is distracting and disingenuous. Truly.

I agree, if done correctly, stings are useful. These are not. You said it’s “frankly dangerous that I said no one believes it’s a minor.” ACTUALLY, I said no one 100% believes it’s a minor.

Why don’t you tell me if “not believing it 100%” is worth felony attempted child sex abuse and 10-15 years in prison, more than some men get for raping a toddler.

YOU brought up INTENT and its importance. It’s beyond the pale that the government is prosecuting these manipulative, unconstitutional, illegal operations that are violating federal laws. And leaving real children to suffer in the meantime.

You make it make sense. Ask ChatGPT. I have already. It agrees with me, when I feed it the truth.

32

Real law enforcement “child predator sting” ads.

33

Thats VERY inappropriate to put them up here !!!

34

Why? They’re all adult women. Are they offensive? Pornographic? A bit over the top? Outrageous, even? There are worse. Crotch shots with a string, etc. Is it maybe just a little too much luring from the agents? A little too much provocation?
Why did you remove them?

Now you’re starting to see the truth of these stings.

35

It’s not about whether the images were “the worst out there” or technically pornographic. The issue is whether the content served a legitimate, professional purpose within the context of an undercover operation—or if it crossed into unnecessary provocation.

Law enforcement is permitted to use some degree of deception in sting operations, including suggestive imagery, but there are legal and ethical boundaries. Courts have repeatedly warned against tactics that go beyond giving someone an opportunity to offend and instead induce someone who wasn’t otherwise predisposed.

Removing the images isn’t about denying reality—it’s about keeping the focus on the lawful execution of these operations. If the images appear gratuitous or designed more to provoke than to investigate, that’s a valid reason to scrutinize them and potentially exclude them from the record. It doesn’t invalidate all stings, but it does raise legitimate concerns about entrapment, targeting methods, and the integrity of the operation.

Recognizing and addressing excessive tactics isn’t “seeing the truth” in some conspiratorial sense—it’s just responsible oversight.

36

I agree that law enforcement is allowed to use deception in stings. I’ve read the case law. That being said, in nearly ALL sting operations, the decoy or crime doesn’t change from misdemeanor to felony to enhanced felony.

Remember, in these specific stings, these men clicked on ads for a legally aged adult woman. Prostitution is illegal in most states, so this would have been a misdemeanor within that state. The government then introduced the enhanced element of minor status. [Unbelievable as it may be given the context, we will stick to the basic facts.]

Up until then, these were state prostitution cases to prosecute. By adding in the element of minor status, it opens the opportunity to move the “crime” from a state misdemeanor to a federal crime of child sex trafficking (in the case of 18 USC 1591). The ‘intrastate commerce’ element is supposedly satisfied by use of a cell phone and Internet, which, frankly, any reasonable person would find ludicrous, but “case law supports it.” :rofl:

Pre-disposition? None apparent from the initial crime of clicking on an adult ad. What about the men’s phones? Anything on there? The answer is almost always no, and sometimes, even agents don’t bother checking the rest of the phone for months after the arrest (because they know these are not child predators).

Often, the undercover chatter leads the conversation. After all, they’re supposed to be an experienced sex worker advertising all sorts of sexual services on an adult website. They can’t suddenly be a virgin, incapable of following through with the planning, right? They guide the conversation, ask for men to bring protection, send pic of money, tell them what they want, etc. … all the elements of the “crime.” They execute their dance expertly as they play with the emotions of the men who are typically lonely and just wanting transactional sex with an adult woman (that’s what they clicked on). But with any transactional sexual online encounter, both parties believe they have the right to observe the other person and walk away. Just showing up doesn’t mean squat. The government has insidiously fabricated this ruse to lure the man to just show up, and then they assign intent to that action.

And in case you think the judicial system will work it out, well, it won’t :rofl:. Garbage in, garbage out. Lies, tampering, hiding evidence, etc. Juries never hear the real truth. Men who don’t plead get 10-15 years in federal prison and lifetime registry. Their families are decimated; THEIR children’s lives ruined. A prostitution charge is something you can recover from. A child sex abuse charge is not.

1 Like
37

Why didn’t you approve my response?

And when someone posted an ad to show what police used to lure the men in these sting operations, you called it inappropriate and removed it. Of course, you guys don’t want the public to see the ads used to lure the men. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with anybody looking for minors or anybody trying to protect minors from anything!
Why lie so much about what these sting operations are really about?

38

This guy obviously wants to hide how the men are lured. That’s why he removes anything that exposes the truths they don’t want exposed about what they really do. Here’s what the courts and juries don’t get see in these trials:

And this:

39

I hear your frustration, and it’s entirely fair to scrutinize the justice system when it comes to stings—especially those involving emotionally and legally complex issues like online solicitation. But let’s separate valid concerns from overgeneralizations.

You’re absolutely right that law enforcement is permitted to use deception in stings. The Supreme Court has long upheld that undercover tactics—even morally gray ones—are lawful, provided they don’t cross into entrapment. And you make a compelling point about how the alleged crime can evolve from a low-level offense into a life-altering federal charge. That escalation deserves real scrutiny, but it’s not as legally outrageous as it may initially seem.

Let’s walk through some of your points.

1. “The men clicked on ads for legally aged adult women.”

That’s where it starts—but not where it ends. Clicking an ad isn’t a crime. It’s what happens next. If a person continues to engage after being told the other party is underage and still agrees to meet for sex, the law considers that a shift in intent. The government isn’t prosecuting someone for wanting to pay an adult for sex—they’re prosecuting based on post-notification actions that indicate willingness to break child exploitation laws.

And this is key: courts have held that once the person is aware of the other party’s minor status and continues to engage, intent becomes fair game. You can disagree with how that’s interpreted—but that’s not the same as saying there’s no legal or moral line being crossed.

2. “No predisposition—nothing on the phone, no history.”

That matters—especially in entrapment defenses—but predisposition is judged based on more than digital forensics. It can include how quickly someone agrees to illegal conduct, how resistant or not they are to suggestions of illegality, and how specific or proactive their responses are.

Yes, many of these men have no prior records. But a lack of past misconduct doesn’t immunize someone from responsibility for current choices. If someone is told “I’m actually 15” and they don’t shut it down—or worse, proceed and show up with condoms and cash—the law doesn’t need much more to infer intent.

3. “Agents guide the conversation.”

It’s true. Undercover agents are trained to keep the dialogue moving and protect themselves from entrapment claims. But here’s the line they are not allowed to cross: inducing someone to commit a crime they weren’t already willing to commit. That’s why many stings deliberately introduce the minor status early, allowing the suspect a clear opportunity to disengage.

Some agents absolutely do a bad job of walking that line, and when they do, it should be challenged in court. But it’s not accurate to say that all stings are “fabricated” or malicious. That strips away nuance and ignores cases where people made deeply troubling choices—regardless of how lonely or “non-predatory” they may seem.

4. “Just showing up doesn’t mean squat.”

Actually, legally, it often does. The Supreme Court and many federal appellate courts have made clear that taking substantial steps toward a criminal act—like traveling to meet a minor for sex—is enough to support an attempt charge. It’s not about whether the sex would have happened; it’s about intent and action. That’s the backbone of how conspiracy and attempt law works in general—not just in these cases.

5. “The judicial system won’t work it out.”

It’s easy to become cynical about the justice system—many people feel that way, and not without reason. But to say it never works or that juries “never hear the truth” is a sweeping indictment that doesn’t hold up. Defense attorneys do mount successful challenges. Judges do dismiss cases. Juries do acquit when there’s doubt. The system is imperfect, sometimes deeply so, but it is not inherently rigged in every instance.

And plea deals? They’re not ideal, but neither are they always proof of injustice. Sometimes they’re the fairest resolution in a deeply flawed set of circumstances.

6. “Families are decimated; their children’s lives ruined.”

That is a deeply human and heartbreaking reality—and it’s why the law must be enforced responsibly. But we can’t conflate sympathy for consequences with exoneration from choices. Adults who knowingly pursue minors for sex are making decisions with predictable, devastating consequences. Even if those decisions stem from loneliness or desperation, they still have to be answered for.

That’s why reform conversations are important—not to excuse harmful behavior, but to ensure proportionality, procedural fairness, and the opportunity for redemption where appropriate.

Final Thought

Yes, sting operations deserve scrutiny. Yes, some tactics border on unethical and may even slip into misconduct. But let’s also recognize that not every arrest is the result of trickery or exaggeration. Intent matters. So does action. We can demand better standards without denying accountability altogether.

Balance is possible. Reform is needed. But so is a recognition that we’re dealing with serious behavior—wrapped in equally serious consequences.

40

You’re raising a serious concern, and it’s absolutely fair to demand transparency in how sting operations are conducted. But let’s clarify a few things:

1. The removal of the ad doesn’t prove concealment or guilt.

Ads used in sting operations are often taken down or restricted from being reposted for legal, ethical, or platform policy reasons—not to “hide the truth.” These ads are sometimes explicit in nature and can violate site policies on adult content or sexual solicitation. Their removal doesn’t automatically mean there’s something nefarious going on.

If the ad was real and relevant to a case, it likely exists in the public court record or discovery materials—not on a message board or social media feed. The right place to scrutinize that evidence is in court or through legitimate journalism—not by reposting potentially misleading or out-of-context materials on the internet.

2. Sting ads are designed to appear legal—until the conversation shifts.

That’s part of the legal strategy. Many of these ads begin with vague or legally ambiguous language—often suggesting the decoy is an adult. It’s after engagement begins that the decoy introduces the idea that they are underage.

Why? Because that’s how law enforcement distinguishes between people looking for sex with adults and those who continue the conversation knowingly after being told the person is underage. Courts have repeatedly upheld this practice—it’s not a secret, nor is it evidence of bad faith. It’s a controlled legal tactic designed to assess intent without entrapment.

3. Saying “these stings aren’t about protecting minors” is provably false.

The entire legal basis of these operations—and the statutes they enforce—is built around child protection. Laws like 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and § 1591 were designed specifically to prevent the exploitation and trafficking of minors. The methods may be controversial, and the outcomes can be harsh, but their stated purpose is not a mystery or lie.

If someone backs out when they learn the other party is a minor, that’s usually not prosecuted. But if someone continues after being told they’re dealing with a child, the law allows that to be treated as intent—even if the “minor” is a decoy. That distinction is critical.

4. These operations aren’t perfect—but the answer isn’t misinformation.

Criticizing how stings are run, the fairness of sentences, or even potential misconduct is valid. But claiming that law enforcement is lying across the board, or that the purpose has nothing to do with minors, ignores both the case law and the actual charges brought.

Let’s debate policy, proportionality, and due process—that’s fair. But throwing out accusations of lies without evidence undermines serious reform efforts and drowns out the real questions we should be asking.

Final Note:

If someone believes a sting ad or tactic is misleading or abusive, there are legitimate avenues to challenge it—in court, through appeals, or via public policy debates. But just posting explicit content online and crying “cover-up” isn’t the way to expose injustice. It’s how real concerns get lost in noise.

41

It’s understandable that people are passionate about transparency and justice—especially when sting operations can lead to severe legal consequences. But accusing someone of “wanting to hide the truth” simply because they moderate content or challenge misleading narratives is not proof of deception—it’s a deflection.

1. Moderation isn’t censorship—it’s responsibility.

If someone removes a post, it doesn’t mean they’re “hiding the truth.” It may be because the post contains explicit content, legally sensitive material, or violates platform standards (e.g., posting sexually suggestive ads, even if they’re part of a sting). That’s not cover-up—it’s about avoiding liability and ensuring responsible discussion.

Also, many of these ads are part of public court records. If there’s truly something unethical or illegal in them, defense attorneys can raise it in court—and often do. The idea that “courts and juries don’t see these ads” is flatly untrue. Discovery rules require that this evidence be disclosed, and defense teams regularly use that material to challenge the government’s tactics.

2. Substack articles and YouTube videos aren’t court records.

While opinion pieces and exposés can raise valid concerns, they aren’t substitutes for actual legal analysis or trial evidence. Just because someone publishes a takedown of law enforcement tactics doesn’t make it factual or complete. Context matters. So does legal accuracy.

If a sting operation violates constitutional or statutory boundaries—that can be challenged in court. Many sting cases have been thrown out or reversed when law enforcement crossed a legal line. That’s how the system works, even if it doesn’t work perfectly.

3. Claims that “these stings aren’t protecting kids” are misleading.

These operations target people who, after being told they’re talking to a minor, continue to plan a sexual encounter. That’s the legal threshold for charges under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) or 1591.

Even if the child is fictional, the intent is real—and courts have upheld that distinction time and again. It’s not entrapment just because the decoy didn’t exist; it’s about what the suspect believed and what they intended to do.

4. Constructive criticism ≠ conspiracy.

We should scrutinize how these stings are conducted. We should debate proportional sentencing, due process, and oversight. But suggesting there’s a grand scheme to “hide the truth” anytime someone moderates a post or challenges misleading framing doesn’t help that cause—it undermines it.

If someone has solid evidence of misconduct, by all means bring it forward—not just opinion pieces, but verifiable documentation. That’s how real change is made: through evidence-based reform, not speculation and viral outrage.

Bottom line:

Not everyone who disagrees with the framing of these operations is “trying to hide the truth.” Sometimes they’re trying to ground the conversation in facts and legal reality—not clickbait or suspicion.