Posted on 10/05/2006 2:45:06 PM PDT by mmyers
You said -- "Was there any sex involved -- I mean did Foley diddle any of these youngsters -- or is this all about emails and instant messages?"
Pedophies are convicted on the basis of just writing e-mails and/or IMs to "supposed" victims (who are actually adult male cops). They never get to the "action" part, before they are arrested.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "If he got unsolicited pervy IMs from a "stranger," why wouldn't he just block that user from being able to contact him? That is standard practice to avoid unwanted IMs."
You don't know the mindset of the younger highschool crowd, then. They will "play along" with these kinds of anonymous IMs, because they know they could be getting spoofed from some of their friends, playing a prank on them. So, they'll go along, trying to trick the other side into revealing something that will clue them in to who is doing this to them.
Their mentality is to "go along" and be just as "outrageous" as the anonymous person, just to see what will happen.
That's how it goes...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Re: you #316.
You're right, not legally a predator. The guy was very careful. (and I've learned a bit more since my earlier post.)
I now think of Foley more as a troll. From what I've read so far, he never tried to arrange a physical liason with anyone under 18.
The "cybersex IM's" with Edmund apparently occurred after he was 18 - consenting adults. Not my cup o' tea, but not my business.
IIRC, corporations weren't too concerned about these things until people started winning multi-million dollar sexual harrassment suits. Then, within weeks, everyone scurried and had a firm anti-sexual harrassment policy.
Also, since congressmen aren't "hired," the analogy is weak.
Republicans have to start calling Dems (and some Reps) on calling this pedophilia, a clinical term for sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to teenagers (whether of legal age or not) is ephebophilia, or more colloquially -- "chicken-hawking."
Remember how fluid the concept of "child" is for Dems: they'll refer to a 14-year-old "woman" who needs the right to an abortion, and moan about the "children" killed by gun violence, when a huge proportion of them are teen-aged drug dealers and gang members.
If there was ever any sex, no one's reported it. And apparently his MO was to email -- first "over-friendly", then more suggestive, and -- if he had found a cooperative correspondent (whether gay or prank) -- even more suggestive.
Frankly, from what info is available, it doesn't sound like he found many takers. He's pathetic, but apparently no coercive.
"Chicken Hawking" is the keystone of the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited and turned into homosexuals - male and female. If Foley's claims of abuse are true, this is exactly what happened to him. He is merely repeating the cycle. Despite all the efforts by the left to convince us all that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it is not. This is a very public example of the predatory nature of homosexuals.
You can bet your bottom dollar Barney Frank has "recruited" young teens.
Sounds like a big jump from pages to assume colleagues knew. His colleagues probably knew (if they thought about it all) that he was gay, but apparently he had an adult "partner" -- per Howie Carr reading from the New York Daily News, a dermatologist or something.
And except for the former page that received the 2005 emails, I've seen nothing to suggest that any of the pages reported anything to anyone in authority -- just in typical adolescent fashion snickered about it themselves.
I don't know. But I would think it more than likely there are others in Congress who have (I'm not really up on who's gay in Congress). That has to be why the Dems were opposed to Freeh investigating -- I think the Repub leadership wanted a full investigation of any abuses in the page program -- and the Dems are determined to keep it to Foley.
Actually I just heard a report about this and the opposite is true. Judges are throwing cases out and convictions are being overturned on appeal, because even though the scum may have thought they were chatting with a 13 year old, if they were really communicating with an adult cop no criome has been committed. The story was about the Dateline stings in particular.
I don't know. I heard this on the Kimmer radio show yester coming home from work. This guy has been trying to get anyone and everyone to interview him... too convenient. My guess is the MSM doesn't want to investigate this side of the story because investigation is something foreign to them. Apparently if you want something really investigated and the truth revealed you have to get the Pajamahadin to do it....
You said -- "Actually I just heard a report about this and the opposite is true. Judges are throwing cases out and convictions are being overturned on appeal, because even though the scum may have thought they were chatting with a 13 year old, if they were really communicating with an adult cop no criome has been committed. The story was about the Dateline stings in particular."
Well, that is certainly interesting. I'm sure the cops are going to say that this makes their "business" more difficult. Others are going to say that this is "coddling" criminals and giving them "rights" that the rest of us don't have (for other sorts of minor or major infractions that some others might get into, in life).
And that's going to create sort of a "furor" with those who are trying to stop this kind of "enticement" over the Internet.
I guess we'll see how it will pan out. It's the first I've heard of that. I'll have to check into it further.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Not entirely true. I read an analysis that indicates this is a real legal gray area when there has been no attempt to meet with the person being communicated with. In those instances, there is almost never any prosecutable crime. The e-mails or communications act as evidence to prove intent when a meeting occurs, not as a prosecutable crime in and of itself. The law is different when such communications occur with a child under 16 in which case attempt to disseminate obscene material to a minor laws kick in. But at 16 and above such laws no longer apply when they're in the form merely of communication, or at least it has been deemed not to apply.
That's not to say Foley isn't sleazy and that it's not good he's resigned. Just stating the law as I understand it.
You make an outstanding point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.