Ritter Wasn't "Set-Up" as Crtics Decry -- and Here's Why

self | 1-22-03 | WL-law

[WL-law]

Much has been chatted (see, i.e., Raimundo's latest screed, but also including thinkers on the right) about how Ritter was "set up" in an oh-so-obvious attempt to silence a Bush critic.

Putting aside the problem of TIMELINES and CAUSE-EFFECT metaphysical problems with that critique, I want to address another problematic aspect -- that the critics think that punishing an "attempt" crime is overreaching, and hence it is evidence of police conspiracy. Thes critics fundamentally misunderstand the notion and retionale for criminalizing "attempted crimes' in our criminal law system.

"Attempt" crimes are a morally legitimate and necessary part of the criminal law -- otherwise, one could never stop an obviously and imminently "intended" act and punish the actor -- you'd have to let the. i.e., murderer shoot the victim before you pulled your gun and said "drop it!"

The key issue in the solicitation case is whether Ritter's intention was provably to actually engage in his activities with an underage girl -- because he could argue that, i.e., he thought the on-line chat partner was a homosexual male and they were just role playing.

Another key is that the attemptor -- Ritter -- has to commit a "penultimate act" -- i.e., the last necessary overt act before the crime itself -- as part of the 'theory' and thus the key statutory element for punishable attempt crimes. And the logic is, since we're punishing a person for something they INTENDED to do, but hadn't done yet, we want to be sure that they were serious in their intent and were not likely to change their decision -- hence we want to see that the last preparatory act was committed.

In both requirements Ritter was caught red-handed.

First, the "decoy" undercover cop was presumably in the restaurant, and presumably looked underage, and presumably (from what I've gleaned from the reports) Ritter continued to 'engage' rather than withdraw -- hence he can't claim the defense of play-acting.

Second, going to the restaurant is the serious-furtherance-of-the-crime ACT that takes idle chat on a computer into the realm of real, imminent, dangerous actions that society is morally right in punishing "as if" the crime itself was already committed.

This is a heightened concern when Ritter's prior behavior is considered.

So the charge of 'set-up is baseless.

[pinz-n-needlez]

I've wandered in and out of these threads lately, but your post came closest to my take on it....

Was Ritter found out in '98, and did that have anything to do with his fortuitous resignation at the time, where, IIRC, he was causing Clinton much discomfort with his proclamations?

Was he 'bought off' and blackmailed at the same time?

Was he exposed, in fact, by the left who can use the timing to smear Bush with their left hand as they neutralize a tranparent idiot at the same time?

If you think this is a worthy question or line of questioning, feel free to run with it. Raising children sure does interfere with my Freep time. lol

Needlez

[Dark Knight]

That's easy, and I think I heard about it here too! There is a program that you can install in a person's computer that will telegraph every keystroke they do. All you have to do is break into a person's area (house, office, backpack) and install the keystroke tattletale program, and it reports back to the person that set it up. If I remember correctly, a judge gave the okay for the FBI to break into a gangsters home, install the program, and let it do it's job.

A blackmailer could do it just as easily. What you can do for fun and profit in the Internet age!

DK

[Focault's Pendulum]

There was NO 14 year old ... only adults playacting the part of a 14 year old.

When I'm late to a party...I apologise for being late. I will not apologise for being late to this thread...especially when the above comment was made.

Your apparent determination, by this comment, that no harm was done....makes me wonder.

Do you feel that no harm was done? I ask this, because the brevity of the comment makes it appear so.

Why do you think "no harm was done?"

[Dark Knight]

It is still fake. A bit theatrical, but fake. Just to reiterate a point I've said a couple of times now, and I am still shocked by it. In Washington State, the sixteen year old was legal to approach for that activity by my read of the RCW (criminal law of Washington). As a father of young girls, you may want to check your state's laws.

Your comments on his wanting a particular type of young girl may not be on the mark. If the press accounts are correct, he was not asking her to do anything but watch. He wanted to try to get his thrill from exposing himself. They are really sick puppies. And the odd thing about that is, you can't really tell how far they would go on the sex offender continuum just by that act.

Keep those young ones safe! And the best of luck!

DK

[bvw]

That's a good question. I didn't quite say that then, it's your inference, but I can go with that. Note that I do, or have said in other posts in this matter, that's Ritter's behaviour is shameful, a bad act, stupid. And even further -- since he was caught in a prior production of this playacting, he was warned, and that warning made Ritter's second-time joining of a play in progress far worse, more shameful, beyond stupidity.

Yet no harm was done. What harm was there, if you see some?

[bvw]

There's a bunch of programs like that. There's even a little adaptor, that looks just like the normal adaptor that fits between the keyboard and PC and capture keystrokes for later retrieval.

[Dark Knight]

Okay, the easy question is who was harmed? Do you think that a 21+ year old police woman was harmed by meeting Scott Ritter, winner of the I'm as sick as Hollywood so they will love me prize, in a restaurant. No sexual activity is indicated.

Maybe the girl who was on the internet with him when he promised to do the manly thing, and wave it around? Oh, we're back to a 21+ year old police officer.

I believe this sting was on the sixteen year old, so I will say it again and it is important. It is legal in my state. I may not like it that way, and if I had any young daughters I would have some stronger words, but it is legal and pathetic here. My state says that even if the sixteen year old girl was real, it was okay. But then again we have Patty "Osama Mama" Murray as a Senator.

I like your name, maybe, my state will swing back to some sense.

DK

Me, I think society was harmed a little (no real victims), but ages of consent have been one of the most contentious issues for states to deal with.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Yet no harm was done. What harm was there, if you see some?

I do see a harm done.

A forty something adult male, attempting to meet, with a sexually and emotionally immature, young person. Especialy when it it done for the personal self gratification on the part of the manipulator.How can you not feel the rage at what was attempted, by explaining away the fact......

"that no harm was done"....because the act, was not given an opportunity to achieve fruition.

[Dark Knight]

I'll put on some fire resistant pants for this response. A Tom Leykis response would be, Mr. Focault's Pendulum, when you give a pool party for your late teen daughters and you see their friends in thong bikinis and all, do you manage to keep out all thoughts of sex in your mind, or are you human?

Morality is to choose not to act, when you know it is wrong. If don't feel anything, then it is not a test of morality. Just another day. But if you do feel something, something you may desire, but you are able to resist temptation, what does that say about your character? I think Scott's test has been made public. He failed.

We don't give enough credit to young people. I know a bunch that would never have done anything this stupid. If you have not been able to impart your wisdom by the age of 11, how do you expect to do it at 17 (it's tougher, duh)?

Dk

[Focault's Pendulum]

We don't give enough credit to young people. I know a bunch that would never have done anything this stupid.

While I can respect your measured response, I have to take issue with the above statement.

It appears, by reversing the ages of the individuals involved, you're attempting, perhaps inadvertantly, to blame the underage female, for the situation that developed.

My query ....why does a forty one year old male, need to meet with a teenage female? Does he simply want a platonic compionship?

[Dark Knight]

Like it or hate it, by the time she is 18 and in some cases younger, like sixteen, she can form relationships with people of any ages based on sex.

Parent's nightmare, Anna Nicole Smith's dream, (Do I even want to think about that, yuk!). At 18 they're free. I hate to say this 'cause you really won't like it. At 18, your daughters will be free to to anything with whoever she wants. I watched my parent's turmoil and it was not easy.

And if it is an 80 year old man, hopefully it will be someone that history can remember them both fondly.

But that is a tough row to hoe. I really don't know what the immediate future is bringing, but I think it will be more than we can imagine.

DK

But back to reality, Scott Ritter, the Johnny Appleseed of our generation, just wanted to spill his seed in front of an underage girl, for what reason, to bring fame and fortune to his family and twin daughters?

[syriacus]

Got caught with his pants down this time.

And to think the "leak" for this story might have been a child who recently recognized Ritter on TV, as the man she saw get arrested at BK, and then reminded her mom.

Word gets around in a community via schools and offices.

[Marysecretary]

Really! I hadn't heard that report. Perverts are really stupid and careless.

[syriacus]

Really! I hadn't heard that report. Perverts are really stupid and careless.

I'm really sorry to have been unclear.

No one has reported this.
I'm just figuring this might have happened. His face has been on TV so much lately that anyone, who was at BK on the day he was arrested, might have recognized him.

The source for the leak needn't be someone who was involved in handling his case. It could be that someone recognized him and tipped off someone else who was in a position to gain access to his mugshot or his records.

[Marysecretary]

Oh, I see. Sorry about the confusion. It happens a lot at my age...smile.

[My back yard]

By golly I think you are right.