If he believed the person was under 18 I don’t see the difference, he understood it was immoral and illegal, why it was illegal and chose to do it anyway. If it was an undercover cop posing as a child it would be just as illegal
“I understood they were 21. The fact that they were an adult roleplaying as a child was understood by both parties, and it was obvious, given the wording they used. Roleplaying is quite common on dating apps. Roleplaying as a different age is so common it even has a name, age-play. When I messaged the other party, I thought I was pursuing an age-play dynamic with a consenting adult.”
I can tell the difference between people doing age play in age play-oriented RP environments and predators hunting for prepubescents on general chat, see. That’s absolutely the worst kind of juror for a pædophile.
Thing is, in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove the defendant’s guilt, hence they would need to prove that the defendant though they were pursuing somebody underage. How would they go about this?
You have a toddler-level view of how laws work. “But I didn’t say to kill them. I said to remove the problem.” That, for example, didn’t work for the mob, and nor is the shit you’re spewing here going to work either.
Again: the courts are not stupid. You’re making childish arguments that would embarrass a “Free Man on the Land” with your “I assumed I was role-playing with a 21-year old” nonsense. (Doubly so since this was a video chat and the AI-created girl was not made up to look like a 21-year old play-acting 14.)
Also, please stop acting as an apologist for pædos. It’s really kind of gross. (And go ahead and bring in the pædo-evasion: "AKSCHUALLY IT’S EPHEBOPHILIA!)
You just admitted the “girl” was an AI video persona, which is possible to identify with a trained eye. Thus, there was video evidence that the “girl” was being deceptive and all traits they claimed about themselves were suspect. To quote Ready Player One, “she could be a 300-pound dude named Chuck.”
The defendant could claim actual 14 year olds would be unable to orchestrate such a setup with AI personas. Thus, it must have been an older person doing it.
And yet, it’s oddly difficult to convict a mob boss. Only when it was made illegal to be a member of the mob in the first place (RICO-act) was the US able to meaningfully push back the American mafia. Seems like it works to me.
(Doubly so since this was a video chat and the AI-created girl was not made up to look like a 21-year old play-acting 14.)
That is indeed a piece of evidence the prosecution could use to successfully get a conviction, because it disproves the assertion that the person thought they were chatting with an adult. Why didn’t you bring this up earlier? You’d make a terrible lawyer. And the fact that you bring it up as an afterthought shows that you don’t think of it is important. It’s almost like you care more about what the person has been accused of, rather than whether they actually did it.
Also, please stop acting as an apologist for pædos. It’s really kind of gross. (And go ahead and bring in the pædo-evasion: "AKSCHUALLY IT’S EPHEBOPHILIA!)
I’m defending the god given right of every man to a fair trial, whatever they may be accused of. Your belief that basic rights go out the window once the crime somebody is accused is significantly heinous enough is antithetical to rule of law and harmful to society as a whole. And, ironically, it makes it easier for real criminals to evade justice by making it easier to convict the innocent.
If he believed the person was under 18 I don’t see the difference, he understood it was immoral and illegal, why it was illegal and chose to do it anyway. If it was an undercover cop posing as a child it would be just as illegal
“I understood they were 21. The fact that they were an adult roleplaying as a child was understood by both parties, and it was obvious, given the wording they used. Roleplaying is quite common on dating apps. Roleplaying as a different age is so common it even has a name, age-play. When I messaged the other party, I thought I was pursuing an age-play dynamic with a consenting adult.”
Spotted the person rehearsing for his own court case.
Here’s a little problem, however: the courts aren’t stupid.
Good thing you’re not on a jury! I’ve met people who do age play but I haven’t myself.
Good thing, yes. Because I’m not stupid either.
I can tell the difference between people doing age play in age play-oriented RP environments and predators hunting for prepubescents on general chat, see. That’s absolutely the worst kind of juror for a pædophile.
Thing is, in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove the defendant’s guilt, hence they would need to prove that the defendant though they were pursuing somebody underage. How would they go about this?
You have a toddler-level view of how laws work. “But I didn’t say to kill them. I said to remove the problem.” That, for example, didn’t work for the mob, and nor is the shit you’re spewing here going to work either.
Again: the courts are not stupid. You’re making childish arguments that would embarrass a “Free Man on the Land” with your “I assumed I was role-playing with a 21-year old” nonsense. (Doubly so since this was a video chat and the AI-created girl was not made up to look like a 21-year old play-acting 14.)
Also, please stop acting as an apologist for pædos. It’s really kind of gross. (And go ahead and bring in the pædo-evasion: "AKSCHUALLY IT’S EPHEBOPHILIA!)
You just admitted the “girl” was an AI video persona, which is possible to identify with a trained eye. Thus, there was video evidence that the “girl” was being deceptive and all traits they claimed about themselves were suspect. To quote Ready Player One, “she could be a 300-pound dude named Chuck.”
The defendant could claim actual 14 year olds would be unable to orchestrate such a setup with AI personas. Thus, it must have been an older person doing it.
Again. Courts are not run by idiots, unlike, apparently, the pædo-apologists. None of that shit is going to fly in court.
Go ahead. Test this. You seem so fucking eager to. Go for it. I’ll fingerwave at your sentencing.
Apparently my comment started a real pedo hysteria thread, simultaneously missing and encapsulating my whole point.
And yet, it’s oddly difficult to convict a mob boss. Only when it was made illegal to be a member of the mob in the first place (RICO-act) was the US able to meaningfully push back the American mafia. Seems like it works to me.
That is indeed a piece of evidence the prosecution could use to successfully get a conviction, because it disproves the assertion that the person thought they were chatting with an adult. Why didn’t you bring this up earlier? You’d make a terrible lawyer. And the fact that you bring it up as an afterthought shows that you don’t think of it is important. It’s almost like you care more about what the person has been accused of, rather than whether they actually did it.
I’m defending the god given right of every man to a fair trial, whatever they may be accused of. Your belief that basic rights go out the window once the crime somebody is accused is significantly heinous enough is antithetical to rule of law and harmful to society as a whole. And, ironically, it makes it easier for real criminals to evade justice by making it easier to convict the innocent.
Why didn’t you fucking look at the fucking article that was under fucking review you fucking moron?
Because Mens rea being provable in this specific case is immaterial as to whether it needs to be proven in order to reach a conviction.