You give Elwood a bad name, Doud. And Jake and I are not amused.
Plusses - Corrupt, sleazy Dem outed.
Minuses - “Police placed ads on a website and an undercover officer communicated with customers.” Gosh, I sure am glad that there’s no “entrapment” involved.
Obligatory Chris Hanson picture needed for this thread.
Ping to the noob sex-offender defender.
Check out his posting history while there’s still time.
Welcome to FR noob. You’ll find your sex-offender friendly posts don’t cut it here.
Oh, and
IBTZ
I agree child sex is deplorable and both Parties have had bipartisan representatives and staff that have been involved in it.
I have some mixed emotions on law enforcement using “entrapment”. It’s a gray area as to whether they are preventing crime or just ensnaring people that wouldn’t have ever been involved had they not put out bait.
I’ve seen press articles where they use it to get “johns” on prostitution charges by dressing up an attractive 20 yo female in skimpy sexy clothing and arresting them if they stop and inquire.
However I don’t believe it is “gray” when politicians are offered cash to do something illegal and they bite at it and are then caught because 99% of the time they get away with it.
Of course if there were no cops using stings to get pedophiles, all the pedophilia would instantly stop.
Of course.
Can somebody please find an “I’m with stupid” shirt to send him?
Oh, and the arrow has to point straight down.
You give Elwood a bad name, Doud. And Jake and I are not amused.