Seven NAMBLA Members Busted in Sex Sting

[Sam Spade]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147645,00.html

 LOS ANGELES  — Seven members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, including two teachers, were arrested in Southern California and charged with allegedly planning to travel to Mexico to have sex with boys, authorities said.

An eighth man was charged with distributing child pornography, said FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller.

Four men were arrested in Los Angeles and three in San Diego Saturday.

They were charged Monday, following a sting operation in which each man allegedly paid hundreds of dollars to an undercover agent to arrange the sex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said during a news conference Monday.

During the investigation, the FBI set up a fake travel company that offered a trip to Mexico to meet boys for sex, Eimiller said.

[...]

[Richard]

*frown* How do you arrest someone for a crime they have not yet committed?  I'm not talking about the guy that distributed the kiddie porn, but the rest of them.

[opebo]

*frown* How do you arrest someone for a crime they have not yet committed?  I'm not talking about the guy that distributed the kiddie porn, but the rest of them.

America is a bit of a police state, I'm afraid.

[minionofmidas]

The part that makes my blood freeze is the full disclosure of these guys' names, addresses and even in some cases occupations.
Although sad to say, this is common practice in most parts of the world.

[John Dibble]

*frown* How do you arrest someone for a crime they have not yet committed?  I'm not talking about the guy that distributed the kiddie porn, but the rest of them.

I know this may sound un-Libertarian of me, but I agree with the decision here(provided this isn't a corrupt police scam just to get their numbers up with false accusations, but that's another case). Would you advocate letting someone planning a terrorist attack go free just because they haven't commited the crime yet? No, of course not - they had the intent to commit the crime, and as far as I'm concerned intent is the same as the deed. Doesn't matter if you are successful or not. This is the same reason I don't differentiate between attempted murder and murder.

[opebo]

The part that makes my blood freeze is the full disclosure of these guys' names, addresses and even in some cases occupations.
Although sad to say, this is common practice in most parts of the world.

Yes, it is absurd that people who are merely charged with - not yet convicted of - a crime are subjected to publicity by the police.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

[opebo]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

[John Dibble]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Of course they're persecuted - they are paedophiles.

[Richard]

I know this may sound un-Libertarian of me, but I agree with the decision here(provided this isn't a corrupt police scam just to get their numbers up with false accusations, but that's another case). Would you advocate letting someone planning a terrorist attack go free just because they haven't commited the crime yet? No, of course not

You cannot arrest and jail someone for an uncommitted crime.   That is criminal in itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?  So thoughts can now be crimes too?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  With attempted murder, it would be hard to prove you didn't want to commit murder.  All these guys have to do is say that they were going to call the police when on the ship to have everyone arrested.  The burden of proof on you, the prosecution, to prove they were going to commit a crime, is too far removed.



I'm sorry, but this is actions of a police state.  I cannot sanction such actions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Of course they're persecuted - they are paedophiles.

Ah... perverts

[John Dibble]

I know this may sound un-Libertarian of me, but I agree with the decision here(provided this isn't a corrupt police scam just to get their numbers up with false accusations, but that's another case). Would you advocate letting someone planning a terrorist attack go free just because they haven't commited the crime yet? No, of course not

You cannot arrest and jail someone for an uncommitted crime.   That is criminal in itself.

You fail to see the difference. I'm not saying you can arrest someone for nothing - if truthful, here they had evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime. As I said, would you let someone go who was planning a terrorist attack if you had solid evidence of those plans? Please answer this time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?  So thoughts can now be crimes too?
[/quote]

No. Thoughts are not crimes. See above - conspiring to commit a crime is still a crime. It shows that you not only THOUGHT about commiting the crime(something everyone does, really) but that you had the INTENT and WILL to carry it out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  With attempted murder, it would be hard to prove you didn't want to commit murder.  All these guys have to do is say that they were going to call the police when on the ship to have everyone arrested.  The burden of proof on you, the prosecution, to prove they were going to commit a crime, is too far removed.
[/quote]

And what if you find out that someone is planning to murder you in your sleep? They haven't attempted it yet, but they are planning. What would you do about it, Richius? By the logic you're using here, the person should get off with nothing even though he intended to kill you.

And yes, the burden of proof is on the state that the intent was going to be carried out, I'm not denying due process.

[Richard]

You fail to see the difference. I'm not saying you can arrest someone for nothing - if truthful, here they had evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime. As I said, would you let someone go who was planning a terrorist attack if you had solid evidence of those plans? Please answer this time.

It depends on the case.  For example, I'm not going to accuse someone of attempted murder because he is holding a gun.  Neither can you charge someone with attempted murder if they hold someone at gunpoint.  You can, however, charge someone with attempted murder AFTER AN ATTEMPT has been made.

Depending on the case, if they violated NO laws, and NO attempt has been made, then I have to say, let them go.  It is very case specific, which is why we have juries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here we go again with the arrest before a crime has been committed....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly...  Hey, I intent to kill Saddam if I ever see him in person.  You may as well arrest me now.  Come on.

[Richard]

They were charged Monday, following a sting operation in which each man allegedly paid hundreds of dollars to an undercover agent to arrange the sex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said during a news conference Monday.

All is good.  They actually did commit a crime.

[Joe Republic]

For a moment there I assumed NAMBLA stood for 'North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes', but it turns out I was way off.

[John Dibble]

You fail to see the difference. I'm not saying you can arrest someone for nothing - if truthful, here they had evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime. As I said, would you let someone go who was planning a terrorist attack if you had solid evidence of those plans? Please answer this time.

It depends on the case.  For example, I'm not going to accuse someone of attempted murder because he is holding a gun.  Neither can you charge someone with attempted murder if they hold someone at gunpoint.  You can, however, charge someone with attempted murder AFTER AN ATTEMPT has been made.

Depending on the case, if they violated NO laws, and NO attempt has been made, then I have to say, let them go.  It is very case specific, which is why we have juries.

Yes, it is case specific, and this is why I agree that the burden of proof is on the state. No, just holding a gun is not necessarily a case for attempted murder - but what I'm talking about here is conspiracy. Someone plans with other people to commit a crime, and there is evidence of these plans. Like, what if a person put out an ad for a hitman to kill his wife? That person hasn't really done anything - he hasn't killed his wife, nor has he hired a hitman to do it - but he has clearly shown that he's intending to hire a hitman.

Here, the police supposedly have evidence that these men conspired to go to Mexico and molest children. If their evidence is strong enough to show, within reasonable doubt, that these men were indeed going to molest children, then what should be done?

[John Dibble]

They were charged Monday, following a sting operation in which each man allegedly paid hundreds of dollars to an undercover agent to arrange the sex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said during a news conference Monday.

All is good.  They actually did commit a crime.

Agreed, and this is what I meant - clear evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime. They didn't actually do it yet, but they did enough to prove they were going to.

[minionofmidas]

Putting out an ad is not going to be enough. That's covered by my freedom of speech. Heck, such an ad could simply be a work of art.
Which is why there are undercover sting operations.

[John Dibble]

Putting out an ad is not going to be enough. That's covered by my freedom of speech. Heck, such an ad could simply be a work of art.
Which is why there are undercover sting operations.

True enough. But, such an act at least warrants action to be taken - investigation, sting, whatever the situation calls for.

[David S]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Of course they're persecuted - they are paedophiles.

Ah... perverts

More specifically; child molesters.

If consenting adults want to engage in sex for money that's one thing. But putting kids into the sex trade is pretty damn low in my opinion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Of course they're persecuted - they are paedophiles.

Ah... perverts

More specifically; child molesters.

If consenting adults want to engage in sex for money that's one thing. But putting kids into the sex trade is pretty damn low in my opinion.

It's lower than low

[KEmperor]

NAMBLA Wtf is NAMBLA?

North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Of course they're persecuted - they are paedophiles.

Ah... perverts

More specifically; child molesters.

If consenting adults want to engage in sex for money that's one thing. But putting kids into the sex trade is pretty damn low in my opinion.

It's lower than low

Indeed.  Did you read the article?  They're looking for 8 year old boys!!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed.  Did you read the article?  They're looking for 8 year old boys!!!

Ick

[Lunar]

We arrest terrorists who attempt to buy nuclear weapons from our undercover agents, I have no problem with this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For a moment there I assumed NAMBLA stood for 'North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes', but it turns out I was way off.

Ewww...

That could be worse than what NAMBLA really is in my opinion, but only becaise I consider Marlon Brando to be the most over-hyped and over-wraught actor of the 20th century.