Sister of suicide victim sues ‘Dateline’...after appearing on ‘To Catch a P

[Sequoia]

The sister of a man who was suspected of being a sexual predator and who killed himself as the cameras of “Dateline NBC” closed in on him sued NBC Universal Inc. on Monday for $105 million.

Patricia Conradt’s brother, Bill Conradt Jr., shot himself last November in a Dallas suburb as police knocked at his door and a camera crew for the newsmagazine waited in the street.

Conradt claims her brother, an assistant county prosecutor, committed suicide after he was accused of engaging in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy. She alleges a police officer at the scene of the shooting told a “Dateline” producer, “That’ll make good TV.”

Bill Conradt, 57, became a target of a series called “To Catch a Predator” in which NBC and the activist group Perverted Justice set up shop for four days last November in a two-story home in Murphy, Texas. Perverted Justice staff posed as boys and girls online and arranged to meet men there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19922038/

[CatWoman]

1. hmmmmmmmmmmm

I remember seeing this on another show.

Not sure how I want to respond.

[zonmoy]

2. The guy may have been a pedophile and a creep

but entrapment is still wrong and they should be sued.

[aikoaiko]

9. How is this entrapment?

[zonmoy]

21. It might not be

although it seems that misrepresenting someone as something that they desire, but is illicit, would be the same as setting a trap for someone. also the person they use is not actually underage, are they, so the person didn't actually get caught soliciting someone underage. the use of deception to create a trap for someone I would consider entrapment.

[aikoaiko]

24. Ok, but typically the term entrapment means...

..that the police or their agents use excessive persuasion or requests to get someone to do something illegal which is generally not the case with Perverted Justice. From what I've read, the Perverted Justice agent always makes clear that they are posing as minor and do not initiate sex talk or invite the men over.

I know some people don't like the idea of using props (baking soda for cocaine busts) or actors (for prostitution stings), but it holds up well in the courts.

[jcrew2001]

90. I doubt that these Minor actors don't initiate

the sex talk. it would be interesting to look at the chat logs and determine how the conversations started. Hopefully, if you are truly innocent, your lawyer can show that there was coercion.

[DrDan]

28. what about police prostitution and drug stings

do you consider them to be entrapment?

[zonmoy]

29. yes

[DrDan]

67. but don't these stings usually hold up in court?

I think they do - but don't really know.

So if they do, it must not be considered entrapment from a legal perspective.

Right?

I admit to having some doubt as to their place in fighting this type of crime. But I come down on the side of protecting children and avoiding sexual abuse if at all possible.

[misternormal]

85. Yes they do hold up in court.

As long as it is the idea of the person who is the subject of the sting to commit the crime, and not the authorities. Then it is not entrapment.

[DrDan]

103. Exactly

So - in this case of "sexual predators" - as long as the idea to physically meet comes from the "adult", and he actually makes an attempt to do so, it is not entrapment.

If the "child" were to suggest the meeting, then it would be considered entrapment.


So then perhaps the issue becomes one of whether it should be the basis for a TV show. I am sure there are very different views of this. Does it go beyond other reality shows, like "Cops", "Cheaters", etc? I still come down on the side of the children. If it dissuades a single case of child molestation, then it perhaps is worth it.

[Madspirit]

91. It's not entrapment

They use this method all the time to catch internet predators. They put someone online but the predator has to go after the bait first. The cop doesn't initiate the contact.
Lee

[Booster]

102. I had a conversation about this with my nephew. My point is that

the sister should also sue whomever supplied the chatline in the first place. I told my nephew that here on DU if we get out of line we are tombstoned and that should be the case on ALL webchats. He said we have the right to privacy and I said no we don't - not anymore. Seems like a no brainer to me - moderators would stop most of this crap.

[Bluebear]

3. $105 million? Ka-ching. nt

[speakclearly]

109. I doubt the will get anything.......

If police appeared at your door, and there were TV reporters and camera's outside, would your first thought to be finding your gun and shooting yourself in the head? How about your brother? Or sister? Would they shoot themselves if cameras were outside on the sidewalk?

What would drive a person to this? If the person saw cameras and "felt guilty" and was afraid "they would be exposed", who's fault is that. The people with cameras, or the person who committed suicide? What is it that this person did, knew he did, and was so afraid of exposure that he shot himself rather than face the consequences?

I don't think it was his online chat with the a group posing as a minor to "entrap" the man. As we move forward in time, my guess is that he actually had contact with minors and that this is what he was afraid of being exposed. We may never know, but put yourself in his place (or him in your place). What would drive him to self-destruct just because he saw police and cameras at his door? He is around police and cameras every day as a prosecutor. Clearly, to me, he had a deep dark secret that he was afraid had been revealed.

Since the "on-line" chat did not result in his actually going to the rendevous point, he could "explain" his "chat" as an attempt to investigate the use of chat rooms by predators to see how easy it was to exploit young people. He might well have gotten off with such an explanation, especially since he did not go through with the meeting. But, that is why I think he opted to "off" himself. He had a conflict in the current incident, but he had done this activity before that he followed through on.

Hence, I do not believe there will be a judgement against the news station. There may be a settlement to bring it to an end, but if it goes to trial, I'll bet there is no award.

[Zywiec]

4. Good, I hate Chris Hansen n/t

[buff2]

19. Why?

I would think you would hate the perverts. Guess not.

[Zywiec]

30. It's not mutually exclusive

You can hate them both!

[Chichiri]

51. Insert witty remark. Why don't you have a seat over there.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. I've already come to the realization that I'm conflicted on this case

I simply plan to sit back and see what all comes out as this proceeds.

[Lerkfish]

6. my take: its not right that entrapment is ok if the crime is heinous

I think that's why they picked this crime, because who is going to say pedophilia is ok?

but entrapment is a questionable method, as we know from the entrapped "terrorists" in florida who couldn't even come up with a plan on their own.

I feel a bit sickened that they not only use entrapment, but COOPERATE with entertainment media in the process of entrapment. And lets be honest, this is entertainment, pure and simple.

[aikoaiko]

10. How is this entrapment?

[CatWoman]

11. I suppose using the agent (?) posing as a 13 year old?

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

12. Well, thats not entrapment.

Entrapment is when police or their agents solicit someone to commit a crime.

I haven't read every Perverted Justice transcript, but from I have read they never initiate sexual talk or ask them to come over to the house for the NBC show. If they did, then perhaps a case for entrapment could be made.

[King Coal]

13. You poor Hawaiian, I'll argue with ya!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrapment


NOTE: Entrapment is available as a defense only when an agent of the state or federal government has provided the encouragement or inducement. This defense is sometimes allowed in administrative proceedings (as for the revocation of a license to practice medicine) as well as criminal proceedings. In order to establish entrapment, the defendant has the burden of proving either that he or she would not have committed the crime but for the undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent, or that the encouragement was such that it created a risk that persons not inclined to commit the crime would commit it, depending on the jurisdiction. When entrapment is pleaded, evidence (as character evidence) regarding the defendant that might otherwise have been excluded is allowed to be admitted.

[aikoaiko]

15. Exactly, what was the "undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent" in this case

Posing as minor? I don't think so. Entrapment would have to involve the agent requesting the entrapped to commit a crime. As long as the agent who posed as a minor didn't initiate the sex talk or invite him/her over, then I don't see how this is entrapment.

Unless of course, you're saying that once a man knows someone is a minor he can't help himself to talk about sex and invite himself over.

[King Coal]

17. If you're going to provide a strawman, I wish you would provide one

that could win the argument.

:hi:CAT!

[aikoaiko]

20. Fine --- but i see you won't answer the question either.

It really wasn't a straw man argument but more of a sarcastic comment. I don't really think you think that a 13 year old is the cause of the men's behavior.

So he is the question which you may now answer or not depending on whether you want to discuss it.

"What was the "undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent" in this case"


eta: the phrase "undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent" comes from the definition you provided. still waiting for your answer, but none yet.

[King Coal]

31. What a mess I've made of my life!

I don't think the cops can break a law to make you break one. And, lighten up, I was just trying to respond to you because it looked like you were being ignored.

[aikoaiko]

33. ok, sorry, I thought you were being argumentative.

A lot of people on DU claim Perverted Justice and Catch a Predator are "entrapping" men, but I have never seen anyone explain how given the usual legal de0finitions of entrapment.

Sorry for getting snippy.

BTW: I'm not Hawaiian but I wish I were. ;-)

[King Coal]

36. I hate that stupid show.

[CatWoman]

46. you're a trip

:hi:

[NJCher]

72. would your last name be

aikoaiko


Aiaye?



Cher

[Lerkfish]

37. actually, the whole point of the dateline cameras being there is precisely BECAUSE the decoy invites

them to a specific location. have you ever watched this show?

you should also check out a post further down about the difficulty of prosecuting these guys.

Now, see, this is kinda my point: because the crime itself is heinous: pedophilia, it excuses all sorts of sloppy methods. Hey, it should be ok, right, because they're catching pedophiles! Well, no, not really, it doesn't make the METHOD better because it snags really bad people, and it especially doesnt' make the method better if the method in and of itself PREVENTS prosecuting them.

[aikoaiko]

42. yes, I've seen the show -- the pervert asks to meet first and then the decoy provides time/plac

Perverted justice stings have held up in court before, but I obviously don't know if they screwed up this particular sting. I think its more likely that the local prosecutor was upset his colleague and probable friend were snagged in it, but that is pure speculation.

[truebrit71]

27. I believe the local DA won'tr prosecute because it is entrapment...

..I hate these "gotcha' type of programmes...

[Lerkfish]

35. many of the dateline gotchas indeed are NOT prosecuted.

[aikoaiko]

44. Yes, and.....

I don't see your point. Is prosecution the criteria for whether or not they should do these stings?


eta: whoops sorry, I thought this was in response to me -- feel free to ignore.

In the beginning Perverted Justice conducted their stings as a grassroots movement to show people that they needed tobe careful with their kids online. But the stings were just online outings. They did a good job at that.

NBC saw what they were doing and said lets provide a house to see if they show up and tape the whole thing. NBC made money and PJ could some money too.

Then the police were invited in to make arrests if they so desired.

[Lerkfish]

45. you don't PJ "making money" as a red flag?

I mean, think about it.

[aikoaiko]

48. They didn't make money doing thistype of thing for a long time.

So they are making some money -- what's wrong with making some money when doing a public good.

[Lerkfish]

53. perhaps because they are not a law enforcement agency?

do we really want private avocacy groups investigating crimes?

are you seriously saying you have no qualms about that?

how about if FreeRepublic.com is allowed to investigate whether people are terrorists? is that ok with you?

[aikoaiko]

55. People are allowed to investigate people

Freepers, PJ, NBC, you and me ARE allowed to investigate anything we like --- even set up stings but we are not permitted to break laws or violate civil rights when we do so. Being allowed to do so is at the heart of amateur and professional journalism and the 1st amendment.

[Lerkfish]

57. um...ok, after this post I realize we aren't both working with the same resources

I don't think our realities coincide. Because of that, discussion is likely pointless, but I thank you for the opportunity.

[aikoaiko]

59. its ok, I suspected as much --- but don't worry there's still time.

[Lerkfish]

60. no, not really. In no amount of time will our realities coincide

I'm sort of dealing with the actual world. I don't foresee a point in the future where I will abandon it for yours, sorry.

[aikoaiko]

63. "sort of" being the key phrase, but I'll still hold out hope for you.

If you want to say what was wrong or disagreeable with my post, I encourage you to do so. But if backhanded insults are all you got, then I can do that too.

[Lerkfish]

64. actually, I thought I had

the post previous to the following post:

"Freepers, PJ, NBC, you and me ARE allowed to investigate anything we like --- even set up stings but we are not permitted to break laws or violate civil rights when we do so. Being allowed to do so is at the heart of amateur and professional journalism and the 1st amendment."

I asked if you have any problems with avocacy groups investigating crimes.
You then counter with journalism and the 1st amendment. Since there was a disconnect between the two issues, I realized we were not going to have a meeting of the minds. We operate in different views of reality: A journalistic investigation is not done in place of a criminal investigation. An avocacy group with an agenda is not an appropriate agency to set up stings.

the reason for the disconnect is that investigating for a story and investigating to prosecute have very different bars of evidenciary proof to reach.
Putting a camera in someone's face for a crime they have NOT YET COMMITTED, and accusing them of guilt, no matter how much they may be actually guilty, is a libel lawyer's fantasy case. Its shoddy journalism, its even worse police work, and it serves only to titillate the prurient interest of the public without advancing anything except ratings and the pockets of PJ.

You may find that insulting, and if so, well, I can't help that. But in the real world of journalism, entrapment shows like this don't really have a legitimate place, and in law enforcement, employing journalists as investigators is likely to get most cases thrown out summarily.

[aikoaiko]

68. Ok, thanks for hanging in there.

Investigating crimes is different than prosecuting crimes and, yes, I don't want private groups prosecuting crimes. Essentially, I see PJ and NBC as investigating and disseminating the results of their investigations. All things which I consider 1st Amendment protected. Whether police/prosecutors choose to assist the journalists or use the info learned from these private parties, is up to them. You are correct that most don't go to conviction, but some do and they hold up in court.

You say "Putting a camera in someone's face for a crime they have NOT YET COMMITTED, and accusing them of guilt, no matter how much they may be actually guilty, is a libel lawyer's fantasy case." As long as PJ and NBC report the truth, then they can't be touched by any lawyer for libel. In many states, it is a crime to solicit a sexual rendezvous with a minor -- so when the perpetrators initiate and carry out a meeting with an ostensible minor -- they are in fact committing a crime, but it would be for a jury to legally decide on guilt. NBC is currently being sued for doing something that could reasonably be foreseen as leading to the suicide (not libel). I don't have an opinion on that yet.

PJ and NBC's To Catch a Predator are essentially journalistic activities that police sometimes use to apprehend sexual offenders. I don't have a problem with people finding the investigation and apprehension of these men entertaining or NBC or PJ making some money off the endeavor.

I don't find what you said insulting -- just wrong.

[Lerkfish]

69. are you in law enforcement or journalism?

just curious.

[aikoaiko]

74. Neither.

[Lerkfish]

87. I'm in one of the two, and have been for 27 years

and here is the ethical line, at least the main one, that was crossed:

IF the police had a sting operation, and Dateline merely filmed it as POLICE OFFICERS acted as decoys and POLICE OFFICERS confronted the men when they first arrived, that would be in the realm of objective journalism.

Where it left the realm of objective journalism, is when Chris Hanson INSERTED HIMSELF into the sting, and personally confronts the men when they arrive. To further complicate things, several of the media production team were actually deputized to make arrests. This is beyond blurring that ethical line, this completely destroys it.

There are many reasons why this is a bad thing. This is not even embedding, this is presuming to act as an agent of law enforcement. This would be like having Geraldo pick up a weapon and start shooting Iraqis while the film is rolling. Would it make good ratings? probably. Is it good journalism? not really.

For one thing, Police are employed to do this job, and also understand and agree to take the risks. What if one of the subjects pulled out a knife and started stabbing Hanson? Should he have been in that position of risk? Is it his job to do so? Don't misunderstand, journalists undertake risks all the time to DO THEIR OWN JOB. They are not supposed to take risks to DO THE POLICE"S JOB.

Now, lets even muddy the ethics further, and include a for profit vigilante group. They're not police, and they're not journalists...Have you ever seen crime shows on tv where police get upset when people enter their crime scenes and interrupt the "chain of evidence"? There's a reason, for prosecutorial purposes, why evidence is handled prescisely and in a certain way. Vigilantes are not trained to do it, are not authorized to do it, and more than likely render such evidence nonadmissable.

This is why I say you and I are operating under differing realities. I actually know what I"m talking about, and I know about it professionally. You're entitled to your opinion, but its not really an opinion that operates in the world I've been in for decades.

Journalists who do not maintain their objectivity have crossed an ethical line. Police who deputize journalists and put them in harm's way have betrayed the public trust, especially when doing so PREVENTS prosecuting successfully criminals. VIgilante groups ABSOLUTELY should have no place in the process at all.

[aikoaiko]

99. Ok so your chief complaint is PJ & NBC are not objective.

and that prevents successful prosecution of the perverts? I think that is a fair criticism to say they are not objective, but the simple truth is those individuals busted by PJ/NBC were not going to be prosecuted anyway. Police were just able to arrest and prosecute a few as tag alongs.

I agree that deputizing NBC staff was a dual role in the event that could cause conflict of interest.

Your position on the risk to journalists seems superfluous. As you say journalists take risks, bigger risks than a single solicitor of underage sex, all the time. Thats simply a matter of the journalist's choice. They were not taking risks to do the job of police, they were taking risks as journalists. PJ and NBC both did these stings without police involved before police came along.

You know, we first engaged in a conversation because you said they were entrapping the perverts. Entrapment has legal meaning and generally PJ doesn't meet that definition. You sort of changed the discussion with this recent post.

Your characterization of PJ as a for profit vigilante group is really unfair. What is different from they do that news organizations have done for decades? Are you saying that mainstream news organizations have never used decoys or had journalists pose as people they weren't to get stories?

And I repeat it here. If PJ or NBC screwed up, they can pay the consequences.

[Lerkfish]

104. I think I can discuss more than one issue

I both object to the entrapment issue and the objectivity issue. I don't think I have to be relegated to one point of contention.

Risks to journalists is not superfluous. I'm rather annoyed you'd think so. Not only as a physical risk to the reporter, but the police are putting their municipalities at financial risk if something goes wrong.
As I said, it would be objective if journalists filmed police doing their job. It is not for reporters to do the police's job.

as an analogy, if you hired a bodyguard, and without your knowledge or consent, he handed his gun to an actor researching a role as a bodyguard. If you are attacked, you have lost the protection you paid for and incurred increased risk without permission. Law enforcement is not a reality show. Real municipalities and real citizens count on the people they hire to competently and professionally do their jobs. Star struck police departments in thrall of media is not being professional.

we can round and round on this, but as I said, you're operating in a different reality from me on the issue, and I actually do this for a living, so we are not going to come together on it. good day.

[aikoaiko]

106. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You said the show was entrapping people but its not entrapment by any legal definition as long as PJ doesn't initiate contact or solicit the invitation to meet.

You say PJ and NBC are doing the job of police. Actually not. PJ was doing this before the active involvement of police or NBC came along as a public service. NBC and PJ did their show before police came along as mainstream news stories. Police have used information gathered by private entities in the past and will continue to do so.

You say that To Catch a Predator prevents prosecution of perverts from their sloppy forensics, but most of these perverts wouldn't have been prosecuted anyway. Its probable that there is a net gain in prosecutions of solicitors of minors because of PJ working with the police and NBC?

You say that PJ and To Catch a Predator are not being objective journalists because of police involvement and deputization of NBC staff, but you don't show how this change (involving police) caused them to do anything different.

Good day to you.

[Lerkfish]

108. read post #73

where the producer was fired for bringing up the very ethical concerns as a journalist that I explained to you.

[Kingshakabobo]

75. Do you mean to say you have NO problem with "for profit" entities.....

......acting as an investigative arm of the state? This isn't investigative journalism that leads to a separate police investigation ala 60 Minutes etc. They have skipped the middle-man an proceeded right to the actual investigation.... and the lazy-assed police, instead of taking a step back and saying whoa maybe WE should investigate crimes, are sitting in the weeds and getting "perps" handed to them on a silver platter. If you think an investigations and prosecutions are are completely separate you are VERY MISTAKEN. There is a certain level of TRUST we have to place in our law enforcement officials when we employ them to gather evidence leading UP TO a prosecution - trust they won't manufacture evidence, trust they won't entrap suspects, trust they won't hide exculpatory evidence.........Theses are some of the reasons policemen don't work on commission or quotas. When private entities skip the law enforcement system and proceed to investigations they are, IN FACT, working on commission - commissions in the form of profits for PJ and ratings for NBC.

Now, it appears there at least SOME VERY TROUBLING signs that these "investigations" aren't being handled on the up and up...I'm sure you have seen the quotes from the former NBC producer so I won't re-post them.


Now take a look at what you are dealing with in the creator of Perverted Justice. Take a look at the court filings and HIS refusal to stand in front of the justice system when HE gets summoned to appear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjwtmw_sAk0

PJ owner fails to appear and gets judgemnet against him:
http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article23.html

[aikoaiko]

86. What I'm saying is that anyone can, within the bounds of the law, investigate anyone they want.

If law enforcement chooses to use that info or tag along to see if anything rises to the level of arrest and prosecution, then thats their (LE's) choice. For example, if someone has been stealing bicycles in your neighborhood, it perfectly fine to leave your bike locked to a post, videotape some thief cutting the lock and absconding, and then giving the video to the police who decide to use the evidence or not.

You might think of the police as lazy, but PJ are specialists with a years honed skill. I wouldn't blame a small police department for using their skills.

If PJ screws up, then I'm fine with them being held accountable. Same for NBC or the police. But still I admire PJ for when it is true to cause. Exposing manipulative would-be offenders and their methods of verbal coercion without entrapment or breaking the law. If they fail that mission, then they can feel heat of law enforcement or civil court themselves.

[Lerkfish]

88. read post #87

[Kingshakabobo]

94. Your bicycle stealing scenario doesn't hold ANY water......

......unless you want to throw in to the mix, a HUGE financial incentive for me to "catch" thieves.........then add to that, a crack professional editing team and a shady web-site owner.

Are you aware that, besides the NBC affiliation, PJ runs their own vigilante mailing campaigns to the relatives, employers and neighbors of people that PJ has decided is a "wannabe" molester. No judge or jury - just PJ's volunteers and a sense of righteous idignation.........from the link I provided:



>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article23.html
The eight-count civil lawsuit against Eide was launched by Marcell after he was targeted in an harassment campaign by Perverted-Justice in February of 2004. The lawsuit (a number of the court documents may be viewed below) cites a number of complaints against perverted-justice, including infliction of emotional distress, defamation, interference with contractual relations, violation of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) act, and violation of the New Mexico fair practices act.

In the complaint, Marcell states that mass e-mails sent by Perverted-Justice staff and volunteers to his employer, Eastern New Mexico University in Portale accusing him of being a "wannabe pedophile" resulted in "considerable distress" and "ultimately lead to the non-renewal of his contract with E.N.M.U."

[aikoaiko]

100. So when PJ did it for almost no money as volunteers it was ok, then?

I don't have a problem with PJ getting paid for a service as long as they are honest and ethical about what they do.

I've seen that on currupted-justice.com and it may be one of the worst things they have ever done. I don't think they should email family and work people. I'd like to know more about that story.

[PeaceNikki]

82. $70,000 per hour?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/technology/13justice.html?ex=1323666000&en=a5d324dfb0a25999&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"The group’s collaboration with “Dateline” since 2004 has been lucrative. A person familiar with Perverted Justice’s finances who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly said NBC was paying the group roughly $70,000 for each hour of television produced."

[aikoaiko]

89. Sounds like a lot, but 70k is not even the price of a one 15 sec commercial during dateline.

[PeaceNikki]

96. Unless you're Halliburton, $70k/hour *IS* a lot. PLENTY for motive to distort the truth.

Please see my post # 80 for other criticisms of the show. I doubt the integrity of the producers and contributors as much, if not more than I doubt the judgment of the subjects.

[misternormal]

113. If the perpetrator, or pedophile, or whatever...

... you want to call them, makes the suggestion that they meet, and it NOT the suggestion of the decoy, then it's not entrapment.

Ok... look at it like this... a drug bust right?

If a cop asks a dealer to sell him some dope, and the dealer sells it to him, it's entrapment.

If the dealer asks the cop if he wants to buy some dope, and the cop buys it, it isn't.

As long as the proper documentation is maintained as evidence, it can be proven that entrapment didn't exist.

[Outlier]

62. Entrapment is always questionable

both legally and ethically....but I don't think were going to be lucky enough to have all these bastards commit suicide.

It has taken some perverts off the street. Not all that have been arrested, but some.

It has undoubtedly scared some into not soliciting children for sex. Which in turn makes fewer victims which leads to fewer perpetrators in the future. Molestation has a cycle.

And we have one suicide attributed to it. So he ,the suicide, inadvertantly is saving the state's child welfare/service agency money. Which is doubly good because it is Texas and undoubtedly underfunded. Good for him, he did his civic duty by killing himself.

Put a notch in Chris Hansen's belt.

[Lerkfish]

65. right, like I said previously, the heinous nature of the crime attempts to excuse the grey area of

entrapment. Its because any other crime, made into a tv show like this, would not hold up in court.
But because people, like you, feel that the person's suicide, BEFORE a trial, BEFORE an arrest, is a good thing because justice was done, in your opinion, it highlights my point that people's abhorence of pedophiles clouds their judgement on whether this is a proper course of investigation.

[Madspirit]

92. The perp has to go after the bait.

The bait/cop just sits there with a profile out in the world. The bait does not initiate contact. The perp does. THAT is not entrapment. That said, the media part is totally unethical and immoral, in my opinion.
Lee

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Obligatory Popcorn post

:popcorn:

--p!

[CatWoman]

8. !!

:hide:

[Zywiec]

14. Why was Dateline going to the man's house?

They had no arrest warrant.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. I've always assumed they did.

"She said in the lawsuit that NBC “steamrolled” police to arrest her brother at his home after he failed to show up at the rigged house 35 miles away."

However, now that you mention it I've never heard mention of them actually having a warrant in hand.

[Sapere aude]

16. To me the tragedy is that these shows get good ratings.

[frylock]

22. word up!

Who the fuck watches this crap and what makes them tick?!

[Outlier]

49. I watch it.

I enjoy watching the pervs do the perp walk. Some of the guys caught do get prosecuted, and go to jail. A rabbi from one of the first episodes is doing 10 years.

If this show was around 30 years ago it could have saved the catholic church a lot of money.

Shame and the fear of being shamed has almost certainly saved some little kid from beiing perped on. Of Course since this sort of thing is a cycle, it has also prevented an exponential number of perpetrations of perversion in the future.

Definitely a net positive.

As for the suicide. It is sad and unfortunate, and completely forseeable, per my other post. I will save my tears for someonelse, like the countless silent victims of these perverts.

[Kingshakabobo]

95. Colonel Bat Guano? Is that you? n/t

[mondo joe]

23. Good. I very much dislike this thing being done for TV ratings.

I think law enforcement should be beyond that.

[MagickMuffin]

25. I posted something about this in GD last Thursday.... Check out the links for video

NBC News faces a potential $100 million lawsuit over its TV show "To Catch A Predator," shot in the Collin County town of Murphy last fall.

The network was served with a warning letter on Tuesday, charging NBC with negligence in the sex sting.

The sting ended when former Kaufman County district attorney Louis "Bill" Conradt Jr. killed himself as police initiated a search of his house. Conradt's constitutional rights were violated, his sister charged in her legal action. Von Erck represents one leg of a triangle that came together in the production of "To Catch a Predator." The other legs are NBC News and Murphy police.

All say they are in business to help the public, but each gets another reward from the TV show:

• Perverted Justice gets money.
• NBC gets ratings.
• The Murphy Police Department got famous.

"Murphy, Texas is a well-known name now," District Attorney Roach said. "Not for the reasons they would have liked, but it certainly is."

Roach has been criticized on the Internet for asking the questions nobody else would.

When Murphy police arrested 23 men while making "To Catch a Predator," Roach asked where the arrest warrants were.

There were none.

John Roach knew the money issue would come up in court as part of the required disclosure of benefits received by possible witnesses. "What is the deal between NBC and Perverted Justice? Who's getting paid what?" Roach asked.

When the Collin DA's office asked for the contract between the two parties, Perverted Justice—far from cooperating—said the DA would have to get the document from the group's theatrical agent.


MORE:
this link is to the article:
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/s...


link to video:
http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=160092

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1378540

[PeaceNikki]

80. Thank you for this. I am very interested in the "Perverted Justice gets $" part...

Are they for profit?

Holy shit...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/technology/13justice.html?ex=1323666000&en=a5d324dfb0a25999&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"...NBC was paying the group roughly $70,000 for each hour of television produced."

In looking, I also found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverted-Justice
Criticism

Perverted-Justice, as well as its volunteers, have been criticized over the years by a number of individuals and organizations.

The critics of the site include the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), among others. Tina Schwartz, NCMEC director of communication, has said: "It's really not the safest, most effective way to combat this problem ... From what I've seen ... they embarrass the people, but I don't know that complete justice is ever served".<30>...

Scott Morrow runs Corrupted-Justice, a Web site set up to challenge Perverted-Justice. Morrow told ABC News there is currently no way to hold Von Erck or any other administrators, operators, or volunteers at Perverted-Justice accountable for mistakes. "When you're running an organization or running a group of people with the potential to do as much damage to people's lives as this does, I think there also has to be some accountability....

Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is quoted as being concerned that the organization could send real predators into hiding...

Some law-enforcement agencies have also stated that, while they appreciate the site's mission, they do not agree with some of the operators' and volunteers' practices. In a December 2004 article in the New York Sun, Bradley Russ, the training director for the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, which employs about 200 federal agents nationwide, said the tactics of Perverted-Justice sometimes run counter to the task force's standards. For instance, Russ said, by accepting child pornography from their "busts" to bolster a potential legal case, the volunteers are themselves in possession of unlawful images. He said federal authorities have begun considering whether to seize Perverted-Justice contributors' computers. "It's a noble effort gone too far," Russ told the newspaper. He also said the site's tactics can make it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute cases they present because those cases can be considered tainted by entrapment claims.<36> According to Russ, "I have a real problem with any citizens' group conducting any investigation into any crime... It's a mistake for law enforcement to abdicate its responsibility to citizens." <37> Said Russ, "I think it's a huge mistake when law enforcement partners with citizens to do investigations. ... I'm very concerned about entrapment issues."

In May of 2007, Perverted Justice was criticized in an employment lawsuit brought by former Dateline producer Marsha Bartel. In the filing, Bartel alleges that NBC provides financial incentives to the group to use trickery and to humiliate targets to “enhance the comedic effect of the public exposure." According to Bartel, some of the men caught in the Predator sting operations have reported that the decoys begged them to come to the sting houses, even after they had decided to walk away. Perverted Justice responded to the criticism by labeling Bartel a disgruntled former employee motivated by financial gain.

[KharmaTrain]

26. The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

The Good is that many parents are now paying attention to what their kids do when they get online. This show has opened an eye into the netherworld of chatrooms and hopefully it's scared a few people who used it for their sexual jollies to go elsewhere. It served as a reminder of how dangerous this world is and what you invite in when you connect a computer to a modem.

The Bad - This series became too successful...it was acclaimed and drew ratings and thus NBC/Universal saw gold in doing more stings and the more perverted or disturbing the better. Face it...seeing 25 guys named Vinnie walking in with a 6-pack and condoms gets dull...but get a Priest or guy in a uniform or school-teacher, and you have box office gold. Thus the pressure gets to top the last sting...get a more shocking bust...push the envelope a little further. And surely, Perverted Justice can easily find the "fishes" that fall so easily into this net. Or is it that easy??

The Ugly - we may soon learn how some of these stings were staged or set-up. The show's initial intent to shed light on a serious problem went into judge/jury mode and the need to make "good TV" can and has led to some tragic results. The recent Nancy Grace fisasco is a similar situation. But NBC News has been caught several times in the past doctoring stories...or sexing them up. It'd be a shame that we find out that illegal methods or unethical practices were used that resulted in a death and the destruction of other lives.

[aikoaiko]

40. on the ugly -- I think you're right.

It does seem to be escalating. In the past, Catch a Predator waited for the men to come to them, but in the case of the suicide, they went to him after he didn't show up if I recall correctly.

[Catherine Vincent]

32. I get the feeling he committed suicide because people would find out

he was trolling to meet boys. I think if it were girls he was after, he wouldn't have taken it so hard.

[malachi]

34. Did Dateline mention the following on their broadcast?

I'd bet the house that NBC didn't.

From the article:

Two dozen men were arrested, but the district attorney refused to prosecute any of them, saying many of the cases were tainted by the involvement of amateurs and that he lacked jurisdiction in most cases because neither the suspects nor decoys were in the county during the online chats. The city manager was fired for approving the arrangement without telling the mayor or the city council.

http://www.comcast.net/tv/index.jsp?cat=TELEVISION&fn=/2007/07/24/722031.html&cvqh=itn_dateline

[aikoaiko]

39. Could be true or it could be that friends were busted in the sting.

The suicide, for example, was a county prosecutor.

Perverted Justice stings have held up in court before despite their amateur status.

[Lerkfish]

41. you'll make up a wild theory like this with no proof, but balk at entrapment?

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

47. Its not such a wild theory if you know how local prosecutors often help one another.

I didn't offer it as the truth, but a very possible alternative explanation. Or maybe PJ, NBC, and the local police screwed up the chain of command like the prosecutor said. That really doesn't change much.

[Outlier]

58. what kind of prosecuter

would let 20 perverts go, to help his dead friend save face??? NOt likely. More likely he had legal issues with it.



Or another wild theory could be: he could be a pervert who wants perverted justice and chris hansen out of business, so it's safe to go troll for kids on the internet again, like the goods old days.

[NJCher]

76. doesn't necessarily mean they were bad arrests

This is Texas, after all.



Cher

[SallyMander]

38. Tangential thought --

can one really be a "suicide victim"? Can you be the victim if you are also the perpetrator?

Discuss.

[NJCher]

77. LOL

Good catch.



Cher

[Outlier]

43. I saw this coming

Last time we saw that show on TV, I told my wife," wow it's amazing nobody has gotten killed yet." They are destroying these people's lives, and the moment they realize it is when the cameras come out.

[Katherine Brengle]

52. They deserve it.

No sympathy for people who hurt children.

[youthere]

97. ditto.

[Katherine Brengle]

50. One less child molester on the streets.

Though if the cop really said that, that is sort of shitty and should be dealt with.

[walldude]

54. Yeah because he killed himself after

they came to his house. There is a chance here that they guy thought better of what he was going to do but they came after him anyway. I also have been reading that in some cities the DA's have had to drop all the cases brought up by this show because of the legalities of TV personalities acting as cops. If this show wasn't really just for the ratings, if they really gave a shit about child predators, they would get the hell off the air and apologize to their viewers for fucking up the arrests and allowing those guys they were so happy to setup back out on the streets.

[Lerkfish]

56. but its a ratings winner! that's all that is important!

[PeaceNikki]

79. He wasn't tried and convicted, though, was he?

[spanone]

61. i hate this show. catching predators is good but not entertainment.

[Swamp Rat]

66. I hope she wins and the show is taken off the air.

I'm all for catching child predators (one almost got me when I was 4), but this TV show is ghoulish. :puke:

[MrSlayer]

70. This will be thrown out of court.

As it should be. It's ridiculous.

[Pavulon]

84. We have a winner! This dog don't hunt(nt)

[High Plains]

71. Good. I hope the sister takes them to the cleaners and...

...drives them off the air.

There is something very ugly about this program, and it ain't just the pathetic losers (note I did not say "predators") chasing imaginary teenagers.

[KurtNYC]

73. Here is the guy from PJ when the cameras come to him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjwtmw_sAk0

and there is another lawsuit involving the show:
In a scathing broadside at NBC's popular "To Catch a Predator" series, a former producer charges that she was canned last year after complaining that the show violated "numerous journalistic ethical standards" and many of the network's own "policies and guidelines." In a breach of contract lawsuit, Marsha Bartel, 49, alleges that her 21-year career at NBC ended months after her August 2006 appointment as "sole producer" of "To Catch a Predator," which conducts sting operations targeting men seeking illicit liaisons with children they've met online. According to her complaint, which was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Chicago, Bartel charges that many of the program's ethical lapses stem from its relationship with Perverted Justice, a shadowy vigilante group that the show uses to "troll for and lure targets into its sting." A copy of Bartel's lawsuit can be found below. According to Bartel, by paying Perverted Justice, NBC has given the group a "financial incentive to lie to trick targets of its sting." The identities of the group's 50-plus volunteers were kept secret from her, Bartel says, adding that Perverted Justice does not provide "complete transcripts from its trolling operations," so network officials "cannot independently verify the accuracy" of the group's transcripts. In some instances, Bartel claims, sting targets are "led into additional acts of humiliation (such as being encouraged to remove their clothes) in order to enhance the comedic effect of the public exposure of these persons." She also charges that NBC has unethically covered up the fact that law enforcement officials have acted improperly while working in conjunction with the "To Catch a Predator" crew, such as "goofing off by waving rubber chickens in the faces of sting targets while forcing them to the ground and handcuffing them."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0529071nbc1.html

I too, narrowly escaped molestation when I was about 4 years-old and I think that children need to be aware of and protected from predators. In my case it was an older male neighbor that my parents liked. But if a real 14 year-old girl goes into an online adult chat room and receives multiple nude pictures in her email and has multiple discussions about sex with some random guy and then gives him her address then bad things can happen. But that is a long way from catching predators who are hiding behind priest collars, or other professions and are targetting children who are simply attending church, school, camps or daycare.

[PeaceNikki]

81. I appreciate your personal perspective.

I am concerned about the financial motivation behind Perverted Justice and NBC in this as well as the potential for it to do more harm than good. The "Criticisms" section on the Wikipedia entry of PJ are quite important when considering the merits and morality of the show itself and the guilt of their targets. I hate to see such exploitation of people in the name of ridiculous profits for all involved at the expense of hundreds of people and their families.

[Pavulon]

83. Kids are stupid, It is illegal to screw them

pretty simple. If you proposition a 14 year old kid, knowing they are 14 you are an ass and a criminal. I feel NO SYMPATHTY for these scum. They destroy lives when they succeed.

They did not get in the car and drive to meet someone just to have a nice chat.

Would you show up in a strangers house naked for no reason. No you would not, those people are there because they want to screw a kid.

I wish all of them would remove themselves from the population.

Obviously the "you" used here is not directed at you the poster. Just designed to make you think.

[youthere]

98. Amen.

[aikoaiko]

111. OK, here's what I think

From your post: In a breach of contract lawsuit, Marsha Bartel, 49, alleges that her 21-year career at NBC ended months after her August 2006 appointment as "sole producer" of "To Catch a Predator," which conducts sting operations targeting men seeking illicit liaisons with children they've met online.
From Me: If Bartel was sole producer, doesn't that mean she was in charge of the money and decisions? Perhaps sole producer is not an accurate description.

From your post: According to her complaint, which was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Chicago, Bartel charges that many of the program's ethical lapses stem from its relationship with Perverted Justice, a shadowy vigilante group that the show uses to "troll for and lure targets into its sting." A copy of Bartel's lawsuit can be found below. According to Bartel, by paying Perverted Justice, NBC has given the group a "financial incentive to lie to trick targets of its sting."
From Me: Wow. What is with people not wanting PJ to get paid for their service. Do the reporters do their work for free? Is she, the producer, pro bono? How ironic that someone seeking money through a lawsuit discredits someone else for getting paid. Notice there is no claim here that PJ did anything wrong -- only that there was an incentive to lie.

From your post: The identities of the group's 50-plus volunteers were kept secret from her, Bartel says, adding that Perverted Justice does not provide "complete transcripts from its trolling operations," so network officials "cannot independently verify the accuracy" of the group's transcripts.
From Me: NBC was watching - it was her show. She could have gotten anything she wanted. She could have had cameras trained on the monitors to record everything. She was the producer. And notice, there was still no indication of any actual wrong doing by PJ. Should PJ provide full transcripts on secure machines? Of course, but that would be the job of the producer to demand that.

From your post: In some instances, Bartel claims, sting targets are "led into additional acts of humiliation (such as being encouraged to remove their clothes) in order to enhance the comedic effect of the public exposure of these persons." She also charges that NBC has unethically covered up the fact that law enforcement officials have acted improperly while working in conjunction with the "To Catch a Predator" crew, such as "goofing off by waving rubber chickens in the faces of sting targets while forcing them to the ground and handcuffing them."
From me: Humiliating perverts --- the horror the horror. Should they do that -- probably not. Is it a big deal, no.

About your personal comment: I'm just as interesting in protecting 14 year olds and 4 year olds. You seem fairly dismissive of the 14 year old getting exploited by perverts.

[trumad]

78. Tell me something... How many are not caught?

[Madspirit]

93. I Hope She Wins

Pedophiles should be removed from the general public but they ARE ill AND don't we have a silly thing called due process...trial, jury, etc. Lastly, the sentence for being a pedophile is not death. This show is the most trashy-assed thing I have ever heard of and shouldn't be allowed to do what they do.
Lee

[NJCher]

101. some considerations about the show

I find KurtNYC's post very disturbing. Based on what the former producer is maintaining, it does indeed seem that the show has crossed the line in its pursuit of ratings. I am disappointed about that because I've watched the show over a period of time and I think it has in fact made child molesters very wary of engaging in their sick practices. It has made them paranoid and in some situations, the molester has backed off because of concern about getting caught.

I don't understand why the show would track this guy down to his house. This seems uncharacteristic. I have never seen them do anything like that before. It doesn't make any sense because they couldn't justify such an action when they show the footage.

I can appreciate posters' comments about how this is an unseemly show. It certainly does get down in the dirt and practice scumbag-like tactics, kind of like what the molesters themselves do. But the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two things that might warrant such an over-extension of crime solving practices:

1. These people seem to be extreme sociopaths. Witness the number of them who have children of their own, yet they are out there thinking it is perfectly fine to molest someone else's kid.

2. Parents in America are so slow to catch on to what can cause their kids harm. I know this is this case with video games, so why would the Internet and molesters be any different? This show, by repeating the stings over and over again, is getting through.

It doesn't bother me that the Perverted Justice people are receiving some money. Why should they have to do everything for free? If you've ever set up a grassroots organization and tried to run it, you'll know what I mean. If they can get some funding from the show that helps them continue with their mission, there's nothing wrong with that.




Cher

[PVnRT]

105. I see the people buying into the pedophilia mass hysteria have weighed in

Do you guys support vigilantism in all cases, or just here?

[Outlier]

107. It's not mass hysteria

It's right next door to you, and if you don't know that it's because you are lucky enough to not have been exposed to it personally or through someone who works in child welfare. I have. I was once clueless, like a lot of people to this crime.

Societies reluctance to engage in the prevention and rehabiliation of it's victims and the media's use of euphemisms when reporting what actually happens (no the 10 year old girl wasn't molested, her neighbor fucked her in the ass), blinds the general public to what is actually going on. Since nobody apparently cares or does not want to know, the families and the victims brush it under the carpet to avoid the attention and to avoid having to answer the hard questions, hoping it will all just go away.

If societies rightoues indignation would be harnessed, so the victims don't feel ashamed, and they know they will be supported, they will feel more comfortable ratting out the perpetrator, ending one small part of the cycle. And it is a cycle a large percentage of the perps were perped on when they were younger, eventually you have to stop the cycle.

Unfortunately, the state I live in has privatized child welfare going for the low bid, which inevitably lowers the quality and quantity of services, leaving these poor kids to fend for themselves.

One more thing, it's not vigilantism since the perpetrators all get their day in court, and don't end each episode hanging from a rope.

[PVnRT]

110. Give me hard evidence

that this is happening more than it used to. Then I might believe that it's not mass hysteria fueld by a media more concerned with generating fear for profit.

This is not excusing the crime; I am sick of the media's laser-like focus on it.

[Outlier]

112. If you think you're sick of the media's laser like focus

Try reading the case files of the victims that will make you sick.

"Laser like focus" can hardly be used to describe the media's attention since the TV show is on dateline on average once a week. Watching TV isn't what it was 10 years ago with more channels and more competetion from everything else there is to do.

"Hard Evidence this is happening more than it used to." First, it is irrelevant if it is a bigger problem than it was in the past, to my knowledge the media did nothing to aid in the reduction of lewd and lascivious behavior in the past. In fact, a little common sense tells me the media has increased this type of behavior directly through the internet with the proliferation of and exchange of child porn and internet chat rooms where trolling for little kids is so much easier and can be facilitated from 100's of miles away. They don't have to perp on the kid in their Sunday School Class or in the little league team or their neighbor, they can order one up on the internet hundreds of miles away where no one knows them and they can be anonymous. So if the media through one TV show is finally doing something positive in this area, 3 cheers from me. And if they are making money off of it, SO WHAT. If money can be made for the public good all the better. The public good doesn't end with the 25 guys arrested each episode. If you add in any future victims, and their victims 20 years from now, the cost of mental health therapy for a kid that may not have needed in the first place had they not been perped on, and other things I probably don't know about, the poublic is getting a tremendous bang for the bucks perverted jusctice is getting from NBC.

Win, win, win. I don't know why you can't get that,Jack Smirking Revenge.

It's not vigilantism. They get their day in court, and if they beat the wrap on a technicality so be it. They're innocent. If they're ashamed to be filmed driving across country to sleep with a 14 year old girl/boy that's their issue. It happened, it's right there on film, they can't deny it, but if they're innocent what do they have to be ashamed about, right. smirk, smirk, smirk.

This Smirk is right back at you Jack.