Man Arrested in ‘To Catch A Predator’ Sting Acquitted 5 Years Later

[RamboLiberal]

Five years after appearing in one of Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” stings, a 26-year-old California man has been acquitted of the charge against him.

After six days of testimony, a Judge threw out the case against Joseph Roisman and criticized the tactics used by Dateline’s partner, Perverted Justice for engaging in entrapment.

Roisman is the only one of 29 men prosecuted in the Northern California sting to beat the charges. His father had spent more than $100,000 on his defense. “They made my son’s life a living hell for five years,” says Roisman’s mother, who vowed to sue NBC.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/man-arrested-in-to-catch-a-predator-sting-acquitted_b80928

[Taverner]

1. Good. Entrapment is a violation of the Constitution, whether you like it or not.

Because it applies to people who do things like, oh I dunno, buy pot...

[immoderate]

3. Hmm... an idea for a TV reality show.

"Anybody want some Mango? :smoke:

visit www_kripe_com

--imm

[JackDragna]

9. This wasn't entrapment.

Entrapment is when law enforcement actively goads an individual to break the law. It is perfectly within law enforcement's purview, however, to provide criminals opportunity to break the law in stings. While I don't much like the sensationalism of this show, the offenders don't seem to be pursued by anyone pretending to be a minor.

[Taverner]

13. "To Catch a Predator" is pure entrapment

Is there really a 12 or 13 year old girl? No? It's just a journalist posing as one? Then no law has been broken.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for locking up child molesters, but it's not the ends I have a problem with, its the means.

[JackDragna]

14. That's still not entrapment.

Again, legally, for entrapment to occur, law enforcement must convince an individual to commit a crime, usually someone who would have been unlikely to do so in the first place. Police are allowed to pose as minors, drug dealers, chop shop operators, whatever, so long as potential criminals come to them or the police do no more than offer an opportunity to do something illegal. Insofar as I know, the people pretending to be minors for Dateline do not actively contact anyone in chat rooms. So long as this doesn't happen, it does not meet the legal qualifications for entrapment. It is immaterial whether a minor was ever involved in the process.

[Doremus]

27. Entrapment, yes.

DH has watched that show in the past and I've sometimes wondered how producers and the volunteers posing as young girls get away with blatant entrapment

Now it seems they don't always. Good.

[JackDragna]

30. You, and the others in this thread, still don't get the legal definition..

..of entrapment. I cannot be any more clear - unless those posing as young girls actively goad and pressure the suspects into acting, it's not entrapment. Police officials are allowed to pose as anything they want and offer opportunities to commit crimes. It only crosses over into entrapment if the police pressure someone who wasn't likely to commit a crime into the act.

[Romulox]

46. Forget it, Jack. If they were curious, they would've looked the information up on the net,

instead of lecturing extemporaneously on their erroneous and imagined version of the term. :shrug:

[JackDragna]

67. I know.

The info is just so readily available that defines entrapment in a legal sense - there just seems to be this idea that anything done by law enforcement relating to any type of sting is "entrapment."

[WolverineDG]

39. But law enforcement can't rely on evidence garnered illegally or unconstitutionally

by private citizens or companies.

dg

[Iggo]

15. To Catch A Predator is pure ENTERTAINMENT.

Sick, sick, sick entertainment.

[Recovered Repug]

23. Apparently, there doesn't have to be a real 13 year old

for a crime to be committed. If the defendant believes that the decoy is a 13 year old, that is enough for intent. Here's a thread covering the issue if you're interested. There's a long post from someone named Gfactor on why "factual impossibility" (no real 13 year old) is not a defense. Take it for what it's worth.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-496778.html

The entrapment in this case seems to come from the tactics Perverted Justice used in the chat room and not from the lack of a real 13 year old at the house.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110816/ARTICLES/110819618/1350?p=1&tc=pg

[Romulox]

32. That's not the legal definition of entrapment. It has NOTHING to do with whether there really is a

12 year old girl.

You just couldn't be more off base here.

[Taverner]

36. "In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit..."

"...an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit."

Posing as a 12 year old girl is exactly that

[JackDragna]

43. No, it's not.

"Inducing" means applying pressure to an individual to commit the crime. Providing an opportunity to commit a crime, by posing as a minor, a drug dealer or any other sting target is not "inducement." You also missed the part about being unlikely to commit the crime otherwise: many of the people caught in these stings are intentionally going into chat rooms set up for minors and looking for people to talk to. For entrapment to be considered in such cases, the police must have first initiated contact with a suspect and induced the suspect to commit the crime when the suspect had no real intention of going through with it. You do not understand the legal definition of the term.

[Romulox]

44. You know how I know you've never studied the law?

:hi:

[CBGLuthier]

48. Are you kidding? Posing as a twleve year old girl made

grown men want to have sex with her? This says a lot about something but I am not sure it is good.

[Taverner]

54. No, but the act of flirting online did nt

[Romulox]

69. It's shameful for you to keep digging this hole. You're wrong.

And you're too foolish to even look this information up on the net when told you're wrong. In my opinion, you are merely trolling at this point.

[crazyjoe]

50. BS.

If it were really entrapment, every case would be thrown out. These adult perverts are getting in their car and driving in many cases hours, to meet a child whom they think are home alone, planning on having sex with a 12 or 13 year old. I would rather have these jerks arrested by waiting cops than to meet up and do who knows what with venerable children. Any one who has a problem with this I have question what their motives are.

[ohheckyeah]

18. The judge obviously disagrees. n/t

[JackDragna]

29. I can't comment on a specific case, but..

..the comments in this thread indicate the general premise of the show was entrapment. It wasn't. Criminals made a voluntary, conscious choice to go to a house where they thought a 13-year-old girl awaited them for sex.

On edit: To back up what's up-thread, the reversal in this case was on the action of the Perverted Justice volunteers, not based on the tactics of using a fake mark. Using a fake 13-year-old is NOT entrapment, people.

[closeupready]

57. It's entrapment. And if a jury was deciding this, a conviction would be an uphill battle, IMO.

Regardless of your claim that 'legally, it's not entrapment.' I'd file that under, 'a mandate to buy something isn't a tax - because we say it isn't.'

Yes, they caught some creepy characters, good. But it was entrapment.

[JackDragna]

64. Thar's a completely false analogy.

This isn't just my "claim" - this is how entrapment is defined in American jurisprudence. Every day, people are arrested based on their attempt to solicit something from a law enforcement officer pretending to be someone offering the thing in question. Even if the case in question merited being thrown out, the overall procedure used by PJ and Dateline is not entrapment.

[JackDragna]

65. That's a completely false analogy.

This isn't just my "claim" - this is how entrapment is defined in American jurisprudence. Every day, people are arrested based on their attempt to solicit something from a law enforcement officer pretending to be someone offering the thing in question. Even if the case in question merited being thrown out, the overall procedure used by PJ and Dateline is not entrapment.

EDIT: Chrome made me double-post. :)

[jberryhill]

70. The initial contact is never explained...

...and that's why courts, and not just this court, have had problems with some of the resulting prosecutions.

I've watched this show a lot, and one of the things that jumps out at me is that out of dozens of subjects, I think there was something like one time where the suspect had priors. For some reason, the seem to consist of "first timers".

Another thing that jumps out is that a lot of them say the incriminating chat was a "fantasy chat". Was there a preliminary conversation where it was established that the "chattee" was going to pretend to be a minor? I just don't know, and PJ doesn't make the full record of contacts available to the courts.

[frylock]

2. now sue their balls to the wall

[white_wolf]

4. Good. Entrapment should be illegal anyway.

Of course, I expect our justice department to get to that right after they deal with Wall street, and war criminals.

[crazyjoe]

52. ah, entrapment is illegal. What do you want the justice dept to do?

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Hrm. Video and transcript is still online and he admitted several times he knew she was 13

and that he was there for a blow job.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130487/ns/dateline_nbc/t/prominent-men-caught-petaluma-sting/#.TkwLDGGruZI

-snip-

As he starts taking off his clothes, he goes in search of the decoy ... instead he finds me.

Chris Hansen, Dateline correspondent (walks out): Keep your hands outta your pocket for me.

Roisman: Okay.

Hansen: Okay. Now why don’t you go sit down—over on the other side of the bar, please. Right on that stool. Can have a seat. Go ahead, you can put your shirt on or something. What was your plan?

Roisman: Just—I don’t know. Talk. Be friends.

Hansen: Talk. Be friends.

Roisman: As long as we’re friends, that’s fine. As long as I don’t—you know, cross that line.

Hansen: But you talked about having sex with her in the chat.

Roisman: We did discuss oral sex, but I...

Hansen: (reading from transcript) “I want to wrestle you so freakin’ bad.” “Wrestle me?” “I’d let you win just so I could feel you on top of
me.” “*it—I wanna see you so bad.”

Roisman: Honest mistake.

Hansen: Honest mistake.

Roisman: This is my first time doing this.

Hansen: If she would’ve let you, you would a had sex with the girl?

Roisman: With her? No.

Hansen: Do you know that it’s illegal to solicit someone who’s underage, online for sex?

Roisman: Yes.

Hansen: But it seems as though that is what you did here. I mean, you could see how someone would draw that conclusion.

Roisman: Yes.

Hansen: Okay. So, what do you think should happen to you?

Roisman: I’m not sure.

Hansen: Well—there’s something you gotta know. And that is, I’m Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC, and we’re doing a story on adults who try to
meet teens online for sex.

Roisman: There’s nothing else for me to say.

Hansen: Okay.

Roisman: Thank you very much.

This man’s long journey is about to get even longer. As he leaves the backyard and enters the garage he’s arrested, then taken to this booking station, photographed and brought in for questioning.

Officer Wade: Did you know this girl was 13 when you first started talking to her?

Roisman: Yes.

Officer Wade: Did you guys talk about the possibility of her giving a blow job whenever you were talking to her on the Internet?

Roisman: I mentioned oral sex, yes.

Officer Wade: Which would lead a reasonable person to believe that that might have been in the back of your mind, thinking about—

Roisman: Oh yeah, it was definitely in the back of my mind.

Officer Wade: So what would have prevented that from happening if there hadn’t a been somewhere there to intervene?

Roisman: Self-control.

He tells the officer several times that he would not have done anything sexual with a 13-year-old but finally he admits...

Roisman: I would have liked a blow job, yes. Nothin’ more.

[Taverner]

6. So? Entrapment's illegal

Unconstitutional even...

"She" did not exist

[Balbus]

11. Hopefully, this poor soul won't get entrapped again by evil journalists

and find a real 13-year-old girl to give him head. A win/win situation for everyone :thumbsup:

[Taverner]

12. I don't care if he's a mass murdering psychopath - entrapment is illegal

[Bonn1997]

19. +1

[closeupready]

58. You probably opposed the Iraq War, too, you liberal weener. Saddam was BAD GUY!!!!11 !!

Who the fuck cares how we took him down? :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[RSillsbee]

62. Doesn't matter if she existed or not

It is not ok to fuck a 13 year old period. It is not ok to try to fuck a 13 year old period. He was attempting to have sex w/ a minor and he knew itwhat part of that do you not get?

[pitohui]

37. that's not what the transcript says

after being badgered he finally says he would have "liked" a blow job, well, i would like a million dollars and the full moon on a 24k gold platter but what i would "like" has nothing to do with what i might or might not do

the guy might be a scumbag but this transcript and this set-up proves nothing, he may well been just a slightly stupid "friend" who had developed feelings for his invisible friend on the internet but he never meant to act on them in a physical way

did everyone who visited your house when you were a 13 year old girl expect a blowjob from you, of course not, whatever fantasies may have passed through their mind (and if they were male a fantasy or two probably flickered by) doesn't matter, what matters is what they DID ... not what they fantasized

thought crime is not a crime just yet

again, i think the guy is too stupid to live but it ain't against the law to be stupid and i think the judge made the right ruling

now as far as sue-ing the TV show, good luck on that one, the guy who makes the show sounds like a real creep but there is nothing illegal about making a "reality TV" show either

i vote the 26 yr old is lucky his dad had $100K to help defend him, most men in his situations would be in prison for years and never have a chance at a life, he should just STFU and start over quietly in my opinion

he screwed up by getting emotionally involved with an invisible person who could have been anybody, and the TV producer played on his stupidity -- but that's reality TV -- it's TV for the stupid primarily BY and OF the stupid -- not seeing grounds for a lawsuit -- hansen didn't tell this guy to hide behind the barn door when god was passing out brains

i have a firm policy when people start telling me their life story on the internet, if i haven't met them, if no one i know has met them, their life story is fiction until such time as i can ascertain otherwise...and if anyone starts spinning a tale that they're a teen-ager i'm not interested anyway

[Balbus]

7. Yay!! Another kid-toucher let loose on the streets.

[Raine]

8. Yup, I can't be outraged because after "suffering" 5 years he was acquited when he

but admitted he knew the girl was underage. I'm sure not happy this predator is once again on the prowl. x(

[Yooperman]

10. Just shows you what justice a $100,000 can buy.....

If you have money... you can get away with murder.

To me he broke the law... period. If he had not made the decision to go to the address they provided... his life wouldn't be a living hell that his father says it was.

[DiverDave]

21. Absolutely!

He belongs in JAIL!
Entrapment???
BfreakinS!

He KNEW and WANTED that 13 year old girl.

You sick fucks defending him make me want to VOMIT!
And daddys money lets him out to get a REAL 13 year old

God, how can you sleep at night?

[white_wolf]

42. Wow. So we are sick fucks for standing up for the Constitution?

It seems conservatives aren't the only ones willing to sacrifice liberty and shred the Constitution in the name of security. I don't know how people like you can sleep at night knowing you shred the Constitution in your quest for security. We should never under any circumstances give up freedom for security, no matter if that security is from terrorists, child molesters, or whatever other boogieman you can think up. Once you have stopped following the Constitution and the laws in one regard we will soon disregard it all and find ourselves in a police state, but hey at least we'll be safe, right?

[crazyjoe]

51. I guess you don't have a 13 year old daughter.

[white_wolf]

56. No. I don't. That hardly matters to the discussion though.

The fact of the matter is entrapment is a crime and unconstitutional. If you are willing to shred the Constitution in the name of security then go hang out with the Republicans. They welcome that kind of support for a police state. Most of the Left does not, however. Once we disregard the Constitution in one area, it will soon be disregarded in all areas.

[crazyjoe]

60. We are all on the left on this site, and half the posts

on this thread agree with me. Your argument that what the police are doing to catch these perverts is unconstitutional is stupid.
I fully support these operations, and so do most people, left or right.

[white_wolf]

61. What they are doing is unconstitutional.

Just like what the Bush administration did to catch suspected terrorists was unconstitutional. It doesn't matter who we are trying to protect ourselves from, what matters is the fact that is is a violation of the constitution.

[JackDragna]

66. Where in the Constitution does it say police stings are illegal?

eom

[Gordon Shumway]

16. I know I am only new here

But man, this is just wrong.

[onethatcares]

17. let me put it this way

if I came home and found a 26 year old man having any kind of sex with my 13 year old daughter, we wouldn't need "dateline".

and I hate to say this, but living in Floriduh there are five words I could have used to get away with murder. "I feared for my life".

Face it, if you're 26 and you're pulling into the driveway of a supposed 13 year old or 12 year old or 14 year old with a hard on and

some plot in back of your mindm you're stupid, and you haven't been entrapped.


Yeah, I get a little worked up over stuff like this. excuse me.

[indurancevile]

68. what you would do if you found someone with your daughter is completely irrelevant & uninteresting.

[Zax2me]

20. Cool. Now he can go back to buying wine coolers.

Comic books, and firecrackers.
Throw them all in a bag, and search online for his next meeting with a 13-year-old.
We can only HOPE that the evil govt doesn't stand in his way with entrapment and a fake 13-year-old girl.

[Taverner]

22. If he ends up with a fake 13 year old girl, no harm done

If he ends up with a real one, then fine, sic the dogs on him

[JI7]

24. so we can only go after people after the crime is done even if there is proof of intent ?

i'm not talking about thought crimes. i'm talking about people actually carrying out acts . like these guys on this show who drove to the homes .

it wasn't only the chats.

[Taverner]

26. You are punished for the crimes you commit

Period.

[misanthrope]

28. Not so...

...If cops bust you with a pound of weed, scales and baggies, you can be arrested on distribution-related charges.

If you threaten the president, without actually carrying out an act, you can be arrested.

If you plan a bank robbery with accomplices, though you never commit the act, you can be arrested.

Capital murder is distinguished from murder mostly by intent.

It's not as cut and dried as you would like to believe.

[JackDragna]

31. +100

Finally, another person who gets the law. :)

[JVS]

47. Wow, using the bullshit war on drugs to support your case. Way to fail, dude.

[Romulox]

71. When will you people get it through your thick skulls that knowledge of how the law works isn't

advocacy?

The fact is that STINGS, in which the Police pose as prostitutes/drug purchasers/underage persons/criminal co-conspirators are NOT "unconstitutional", NOT "entrapment", NOT anything other than routine police work.

"Entrapment" is when the cops induce a person to commit a crime that they otherwise would never have committed on their own; merely providing a criminal an opportunity to commit a crime is NOT entrapment. In other words, if 10,000 putative "13 year olds" texted me to meet them for sex, I still would not attempt to meet with them. Why? Because the underlying criminal intent (i.e. the intent to have sex with a minor) doesn't exist within me. HOWEVER, if I got such a text and traveled to a location with the intention of meeting a 13 year old for sex, I am guilty of committing a crime, even if that "13 year old girl" ultimately turns out to be a 45 year old police officer. Why? Because I have both a) the guilty state of mind ("Mens Rea") AND have committed actions in furtherance of this crime ("Actus Reus").

Now "mens rea" and "actus reus" may be big legal-sounding words, but they're the FUCKING ESSENCE OF HOW CRIMINAL LAW IN ANALYZED. And I'm a fucking pothead, so don't accuse me of any Drug Warrior bullshit. I still know how the law works despite this (or perhaps because of this.) But you're just flat out wrong on this point! :hi:

[Fleshdancer]

59. don't forget prostitution stings to arrest potential johns as well. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I hope he sues that creep, Chris Hansen

He started out as praiseworthy, but then became a predatory entrapper for the sake of entertainment.

[RebelOne]

38. Actually, I like Chris Hansen. He is really doing a service

by getting these other creep would-be predators off the street.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Romulox]

34. Just so everyone knows, the definition of "entrapment" circulating in this thread is false.

"Entrapment" is when the police entice a person into committing a crime that they would not otherwise commit.

Entrapment has NOTHING to do with whether or not the putative victim of ones *real* criminal intent really exist; indeed, soliciting a "minor" girl on the internet who happens to turn out to be a 45 year old male Police Officer is still a crime!

[pitohui]

40. i don't think we at DU really need to be worried about this fine point

you really think anyone here is likely to go meet a self-proclaimed teen-ager that they met on the internet, sight unseen?

we don't need a lawyer or legal advice because if someone says they're 13, we say, "i'm out of here, you need to talk to your parent, teacher, or minister"

your legal advice, while admirable, would be more helpful if it were being handed out to the troglodytes on that other site...those creeps believe everything they read on the internet (obama is a muslim! global warming is caused by perfectly natural whale farts! 13 year olds are just DYING to meet up with strangers!) but please give us credit for not believing this kind of crap

i don't believe the guy in the story was a democrat, underground or progressive or any kind at all, i'm willing to take a guess that if he has any politics, they are the most stupid and credulous tea-bagger kind of stupidity, that's just the odds

i know you are trying to be kind and helpful but you can't fix stupid

[JI7]

41. sex crimes have nothing to do with politics , look at liberals who defended Polanski

[Romulox]

45. Look up thread. There's a person ardently arguing that stings are "entrapment"

Who can't be dissuaded from his POV. I offer my explanation merely as a service to those who may be swayed by the bizarre analysis, upthread.

Ultimately, I can offer truthful information, but I can't make someone who, after all, wasn't curious enough to actually read an article or treatise on the subject before posting on it, accept or learn from it!

[CBGLuthier]

49. Like they said

You can't fix stupid.

[crazyjoe]

53. Did you even read this thread? Half the posts are defending this child molester.

what the hell are you talking about?

[Pisces]

35. It could very well be entrapment, but the intent of the crime and the sheer numbers

who would commit the crime if there was a 13 yr. old at the receiving end is mind boggling. How do those on this board against this practice propose to manage this problem. I could care less about
these men. They are repeat offenders and this show caught several men more than once.

[lynne]

55. Entrapment? What do you think Roisman was doing? Entrapment of a minor was his plan -

- so I've no sympathy for any of them. Looks like the judges of the other 29 men agree with me.

[aikoaiko]

63. I'd like to see what the judge actually said. There are differences between entrapment and a sting

I know there is much DU hate for To Catch a Predator and Perverted Justice and if they crossed the line there needs to be accountability.

On the other hand, both organizations made many people aware of the potential dangers to children in internet chat rooms.