His basic premise is solid. In the U.S., an accused criminal has the right to confront his accuser in a court of law. If someone is charged with the crime of “communicating with minors for immoral purposes” and “attempted rape of a child,” then it’s absurd to present a grown man or woman (an undercover detective masquerading online as a teenager) as the alleged “victim” in the case.
Savage also pointed out the absurdity of these cases by presenting a hypothetical scenario where the defendant in such a case takes the stand in his own defense:
LAWYER: “Is it true, Mr. So-And-So, that you went to the Acme Hotel that afternoon to meet a 14 year-old child for an intimate encounter?”
DEFENDANT: “No, I didn’t. I went to the Acme Hotel that afternoon to make a fool out of a police officer who was pretending to be a 14 year-old child.”
How does the prosecutor in this case prove the defendant wrong?
The whole case is a farce — because it’s based on the ludicrous assertion that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the defendant did or didn’t know by reading the defendant’s mind.
In this case, by pointing out that he showed up with condoms, lube, handcuffs, and duct tape.
>>The whole case is a farce
Well at least we now we know who the pro-pedophile freepers are. Well done.
If prosecutors can’t offer an actual 14-year old girl that the perv “attempted to rape,” the case should be thrown out. There was a recent case in Australia where some guy ordered a sex doll online, and he was charged because the doll LOOKED underage.
I’m always amazed that these freaks are dumb enough to believe that they’re actually chatting with an under age person, and not a cop. It’s to the point where it’s almost a lame bit, but the baby rapers persist in falling for it.