These men weren’t called up on the phone and solicited by teenage girls.
I *believe* that one possible scenario is that the decoy trolls for men in internet chat rooms. Within seconds, he/she gets a number of “hits” and then they start chatting.
Then over a period of what may be several weeks, there are IM or chat conversations *some of which may be initiated by the decoy*.
My guess is sometimes the mark initiates the conversations, but sometimes it the decoy.
This was brought out in one of the shows where one of the marks was relating how he told the decoy to “leave him alone” and that he was going to “report her to yahoo”.
Sooo - was there any solicitation here?
Initially, almost certainly not. But later on, it seems that the decoys do make contact with the marks.
What constitutes a new IM chat session versus a continuation of an old one? How much time has to pass?
I’m sure if I were a defense lawyer I’d be asking a lot of these questions.
Please don’t think that I’m defending the pervs who get caught, because I’m not.
I’m just pointing out that the situation may be not so cut and dry as your post might make it seem.
True but he did not end the conversation and ended up appearing at the house after telling her to leave him alone. Kinda hard to accuse the decoy when he drives over. She didn't go to his house.
If you know, or think you know, that the person with whom you are chatting, whether he/she initiated the chat, is under age, is that a valid excuse for continuing the conversation and agreeing to a sexual encounter? I say no. I say that it is criminal. Do you disagree?