No Prosecution For TV Nabbed Pedophiles

[Rhino]

Texas DA Won't Prosecute Any Pedophiles Nabbed in NBC 'Predator' Show
Thursday, June 28, 2007

MURPHY, Texas — A sting in which police teamed up with "Dateline NBC" to catch online pedophiles was supposed to send a flinty-eyed, Texas-style warning about this Dallas suburb: Don't mess with Murphy.

Instead, it has turned into a fiasco.

One of the 25 men caught in the sting — a prosecutor from a neighboring county — committed suicide when police came to arrest him. The Murphy city manager who approved the operation lost his job in the ensuing furor.

And the district attorney is refusing to prosecute any of the men, saying many of the cases were tainted by the involvement of amateurs.

"Certainly these people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but the fact that this was all done for television cameras raises some questions," said Mayor Bret Baldwin.

It is the first time in nine "Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator" stings across the country in the past year and a half that prosecutors did not pursue charges....

...City manager Craig Sherwood approved such an operation in this well-to-do community of 11,000 after being approached by "Dateline" and Perverted Justice, but he never informed the mayor or the City Council. He said secrecy was necessary for the sting to be effective.

Over four days in November, 24 men were arrested at a two-story home in one of Murphy's newer neighborhoods after allegedly arranging to meet boys or girls there.

Some other suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house. Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County, who allegedly engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy.

As police knocked at his door and a "Dateline" camera crew waited in the street, Conradt shot himself....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287209,00.html

[Timberwolf]

Eric Chase, a defense attorney specializing in sex crimes, said stings are the job of police, not TV crews. "Police should not be abdicating a very important function to either private organizations or entertainment organizations," he said.
Well, SOMEBODY has to watch out for our kids and the police can't do EVERYTHING you scuzzbucket.

And people wonder why I despise most lawyers and judges...gee, go figure.

Eric Nichols, a Texas deputy attorney general, said that when law enforcement authorities pull an Internet sex sting, officers posing as decoys follow strict rules. Detailed chat logs are kept to ensure that "sex talk" is initiated by the potential predator. That way, a defendant cannot claim entrapment.
So...lemme get this straight...a perv shows up wanting to have sex with a MINOR boy or girl and this scumbag AG won't prosecute? Kick his sorry hind end outta office. It's only entrapment if the dickhead is COERCED into doing something s/he wouldn't NORMALLY do.

[Sarah]

Those who refuse to prosecute child predators should be removed from their office and never be in a position of authority for the rest of their lives.

[Gonzo67]

Those who refuse to prosecute child predators should be removed from their office and never be in a position of authority for the rest of their lives.


Again, I'll agree with you only up to a point. Myself, if given the authority, I would choose NOT to prosecute child molesters. If an adult initiated a sexual conversation with a minor, then showed up at that minors house intending to have sex with the minor, I don't need a prosecutor, or an arresting officer on the door step. What is needed is the coroner. Someone to confirm that the bullet I lodged in his brain bucket was, in fact, the cause of death.

Case closed, bring on the next sick f**k.

[Timberwolf]

:thumb: Absofrigginlutely :thumb:

[kenyon330]

The show should never have existed in the first place.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The show should never have existed in the first place.

Why not?

[Timberwolf]

The show should never have existed in the first place.
So, you are a supporter of letting pedophiles have their way with our kids until law enforcement can come up with formal charges? The citizenry is to have a 'laissez faire' approach to getting these scumbags off the streets? Is THAT what you're saying?

WHY shouldn't the show have existed? The ONLY people who have to be worried about it are PEDOPHILES...NORMAL people wouldn't be engaging in such activities. IF I should ever happen to go into a chat room (been on the 'net for over 15(?) years...haven't been in one yet), and some 'kid' (whether an actual kid or an adult posing as one makes no difference), starts making small talk, I'm damned sure not gonna "hit" on her/him. Just not gonna happen...you see, kenny, I don't get turned on by little kids. Those who DO have to be removed from society, in any way possible.

In fact, were a 'kid' TO start making small talk with me, I'd write down their 'handle', what chat room I was in, what time it was and make a copy of the 'conversation' (cut & paste works nicely), and report it to the local crime unit/police dept (or get a phone #/ email addy for a local/regional sex crimes unit) and let THEM take care of it.

I think...no...I KNOW it's utter BS that an adult would "just try to meet the child to take him/her home to his/her family because s/he was concerned about his/her well being"...BULLNUGGETS. What? Ya friggin' perv!!! (not you kenny) Ya think I fell offa da turnip truck yesterday?? :rolleyes: kenny, you know it, I know it, the perv knows it, the cops know it...s/he was there for one reason...to have sex with a minor.

AFAIC, they don't deserve to live...that that one coward took his own life is poetic justice...cuz he was damned sure gonna deprive a kid of his/her childhood innocence.

[kenyon330]

WHY shouldn't the show have existed? The ONLY people who have to be worried about it are PEDOPHILES...NORMAL people wouldn't be engaging in such activities. IF I should ever happen to go into a chat room (been on the 'net for over 15(?) years...haven't been in one yet), and some 'kid' (whether an actual kid or an adult posing as one makes no difference), starts making small talk, I'm damned sure not gonna "hit" on her/him. Just not gonna happen...you see, kenny, I don't get turned on by little kids. Those who DO have to be removed from society, in any way possible.

Why not?

I should have explained myself better. I support cops with their hunting down of pedophiles, I just don't think it should have been televised like something that was entertaining. The motivation behind this thing isn't justice, it is RATINGS. Why else would he interview them afterward? It isn't our place to see these cases, it is the place of the authorities. I support the police very much, but the show is nothing but exploitation for ratings.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I support the police very much, but the show is nothing but exploitation for ratings.

Who's being exploited?

[kenyon330]

Who's being exploited?

The sleaze bags. I think they should be charged with their crime, but there is no reason for their crime to be broadcast across the nation. They aren't celebrities, they're just the average joe. And I know someone is going to reply that they deserve it because they are "monsters" or something like that, but they really don't. I don't deserve my skeletons to be shown on television and neither do they, regardless of whether the crime is minor or loathsome.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The sleaze bags. I think they should be charged with their crime, but there is no reason for their crime to be broadcast across the nation.

The possible prevention of others from engaging in such behaviors isn't a good enough reason? The awareness of the public of the tactics and behaviors of pedophiles isn't reason enough? The prevention of other and/or future children becoming victims of these "sleaze bags" isn't reason enough?

They aren't celebrities, they're just the average joe.

So if they were celebrities, then that would be reason enough to broadcast their crime across the nation? But average-joes deserve their "privacy"?

And I know someone is going to reply that they deserve it because they are "monsters" or something like that, but they really don't. I don't deserve my skeletons to be shown on television and neither do they, regardless of whether the crime is minor or loathsome.

Why don't they?

[kenyon330]

The possible prevention of others from engaging in such behaviors isn't a good enough reason? The awareness of the public of the tactics and behaviors of pedophiles isn't reason enough? The prevention of other and/or future children becoming victims of these "sleaze bags" isn't reason enough?

I highly doubt this has curbed sexual predator activity. How many people have they caught over the course of the show? Sure, those people deserve to get arrested, but they don't deserve their crime to be broadcast. Think of the families whose lives this destroys. They deserve the punishment of the crime, nothing more.


So if they were celebrities, then that would be reason enough to broadcast their crime across the nation? But average-joes deserve their "privacy"?

No, I'm saying that there is no reason for them to become "celebrities" like this show makes them. There are so many cases similar to these where we never find out the details, and that is the way it should be.


Why don't they?

Because I didn't get put on television for running a stop sign (I didn't really do that, just an example) and they don't deserve their crime to be broadcast. I'm not equating the two, I'm just saying that those crimes are no one's business besides me, the law, and the people who it directly influenced. They and I don't deserve our crimes to be broadcast because the only punishment we should be subject to is what the law says.

[DesertFox]

I don't give a hoot if ratings are involved. Teevee helped catch these perverts and I have no problem whatsoever if everybody in the universe finds out they are perverts. It is after all a matter of public record. Any print media reporter can go down to the courthouse, sit in on the trial and make a big spread of it in his paper. For that matter, he can read the record of the trial and not have to bother attending it.

Such things happen regularly.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I highly doubt this has curbed sexual predator activity.

You may doubt it, but you can't prove that it hasn't either. Even if only one sexual predator has been stopped, wouldn't that make it worth it? Aren't our children worth every effort to make and keep them safe?


I say it still remains a pretty good reason to broadcast this kind of behavior. Keeping it "behind closed doors" lends to a false sense of security.

How many people have they caught over the course of the show?

Regardless of (are you insinuating small?) number, isn't it better that those that were caught, were caught? Better caught than still unknown and prowling wouldn't you say? Don't you think their neighbors, co-workers, friends who have children, associates, etc. deserve to know what kind of person they are related to/dealing with?

Sure, those people deserve to get arrested, but they don't deserve their crime to be broadcast.

And you've yet to give a valid reason why their crime doesn't deserve to be broadcast.

Think of the families whose lives this destroys.

Ah, so the "broadcast" destroys families' lives, not the criminal, pedophelic behavior of their "loved one". The pedophile destroyed those families' lives, not the broadcast. As the old saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

They deserve the punishment of the crime, nothing more.

Again, why don't they deserve it? I believe the public deserves to know who the pedophiles among us are.

No, I'm saying that there is no reason for them to become "celebrities" like this show makes them.

How does it make them "celebrities"? Seems to me, it alerts the public to just who these people are, and gives them the heads-up as to pedophiles among them. I don't think pedophiles are thought of as highly as you seem to think their "celebrity" will make them.

There are so many cases similar to these where we never find out the details, and that is the way it should be.

And what cases similar to these would those be?

So the public doesn't deserve to know who these criminals are?

Because I didn't get put on television for running a stop sign (I didn't really do that, just an example) and they don't deserve their crime to be broadcast.

Do you think if watching you get stopped for running a stop sign would bring in ratings, it shouldn't be televised? Why not? You broke the law, why shouldn't others know that if they see you approaching on the road, it's a possibility that you might run a stop sign (since you've done it before) so they had better be defensive in their driving?

I'm not equating the two, ...

Yes, you most certainly are equating the two. Poor analogy. Want to try again?

I'm just saying that those crimes are no one's business besides me, the law, and the people who it directly influenced.

So you ARE saying the public doesn't deserve to know that a pedophile is living next door to them and their children. Gotcha.

Guess we disagree. Seems to me "those crimes" are exactly the ones the public should be made aware of.

They and I don't deserve our crimes to be broadcast because the only punishment we should be subject to is what the law says.

How is that "punishment"? Being caught in the act of committing a crime is now "punishment"? Or are you saying beling televised while being caught in the act of committing a crime is "punishment"? Why does the criminal deserve a right to privacy in this kind of circumstance? It's not their family who is being caught on tape, it is the criminal. Their families would not be affected if they hadn't broken the law.

[kenyon330]

I understand broadcasting crimes like this within a community, but not nationally.

[DeclinetoState]

Some other suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house. Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County . . .The DA is probably not going to prosecute because he's one of them. One of them might have the goods on the DA, which would be kind of embarrassing if it came out at trial. So, the DA lets them skate, and blames it all on the "amateurs" involved in the show.

(Conradt is the one who offed himself.)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I understand broadcasting crimes like this within a community, but not nationally.

Wait, now you understand broadcasting crimes like this within a community? What happened to "those crimes are no one's business besides me, the law, and the people who it directly influenced. They and I don't deserve our crimes to be broadcast because the only punishment we should be subject to is what the law says. -- kenyon330"?

Seems you are now changing your tune.

No, you still have not provided a sufficient reason not to broadcast these types of crimes.

What if the criminal bails out and skips town and moves in next door to you and your kids (figuratively). Good to know you saw him on a national broadcast, wouldn't you say? Considering law enforcement doesn't regularly communicate across city, county, and state lines, a national broadcast would certainly be beneficial if a pedophile has perpetrated these types of crimes elsewhere and this broadcast leads to arrests for those crimes.

Again, I ask, why doesn't the CRIMINAL deserve to have his crimes broadcast? He loses any right to privacy when he encroaches, infringes, destroys another's.

[Timberwolf]

kenny, What about those who decide the "kitchen's too hot" and relocate? Possibly right next door to your GRANDCHILDREN? Wouldn't you like a head's up? I sure would.

No apologies from me...once a grown man or woman has sex with a child, that person, upon being convicted of their crime, should be immediately taken to the town square and STONED until they are nothing more than an unrecognizeable blob.

I have more compassion for rapists, murderers and thieves...

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

< crickets chirping >

:smirky:

[omegatrump]

The DA is probably not going to prosecute because he's one of them. One of them might have the goods on the DA, which would be kind of embarrassing if it came out at trial. So, the DA lets them skate, and blames it all on the "amateurs" involved in the show.

(Conradt is the one who offed himself.)


I agree. The DA is probably thinking that his own pedophile escapades will be aired.

Reminds me of a Judge in Seattle a few yers ago. He was a Juvenile judge who was using the young boys that came before his court for nasty acts in exchange for lenient sentencing. Everybody knew this judge was a dirt bag but the rest of the judges covered for him.

As they were closing in on this piece of scum he killed himself. Like the prosecuter in Texas. This is really the best possable outcome. Maybe if somebody will come up with this DA's story he'll join his buddy in the next county.

Keep up the good work Dateline.

[Rhino]

I agree with kenyon, up to a point. Enforcing the law should not be an item of entertainment, unless it's covergae of law enforcement enforcing the law. TV people are not trained in enforcing the law, nor do they follow the rules of evidence required to successfully prosecute these cases. As a result, they stand a better chance of preventing the successful capture/prosecution of these perverts than they do of enabling it. TV folks need to report the news, not make the news. As for the sleazebags, I have absolutely no problem with their going through hell over this. However, since many of these cases will never go to court or be successfully prosecuted due to the amateurish behavior of the reporters, the families of these people will have a much better chance of winning lawsuits over these incidents. That too, could hinder the ability of law enforcement to successfully hunt down and bring these pervs to justice in the future. In short, while I wholeheartedly applaud their sentiments and motivations, it is stupid of them to try to enforce the laws themselves. The end result will often be that they prevent that enforcement.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I disagree. They are doing this in conjunction with local law enforcement. Having these things televised sheds light on this issue. Getting caught DOES have an impact, and knowing their faces are broadcast for all the world to see will also have an impact -- maybe not in every case, but even if one case is prevented, one family is made aware of what their friend, co-worker, family-member etc. is doing then I'd call that a success.

IF it more likely leads to successful lawsuits by the criminals against the show and/or their reporters, I don't understand then why this is the first we've heard of one of these situations in the eleven sting operations. Let's be honest, anything anyone does now days leads to lawsuits ... at least they are in pursuit of justice to begin with; I certainly don't see this, as kenyon suggested, as a case of exploitation!

It's known far and wide our law enforcement agencies are spread as thin as paper, they can't be everywhere and do everything. In addition, law enforcement can only get involved AFTER the damage is done, they aren't in the crime prevention business. Each and every one of those instances where a pedophile is 'caught on tape' is an instance it COULD have been someone else's daughter, granddaughter, niece, son, grandson, nephew, etc.

[Rhino]

They didn't have the law enforcement participation that they needed.

"The fact that somebody besides police officers were involved is what makes this case bad," said Roach, who was informed of the sting in advance but did not participate. "If professionals had been running the show, they would have done a much better job rather than being at the beck and call of outsiders."Apparently the city manager chose not to inform a lot of people, many of whom may have made the cases more solid. Most charges were dropped simply because they did not appear within the DA's jurisdiction. That's a pretty simple concept for law enforcement to grasp, which indicates that their involvement was minimal. They also didn't follow the rules of evidence for the chat logs, which made them inadmissible, another fact that indicates little or no law enforcement participation. But since this sting was being run by television employees rather than law enforcement, why should that be surprising?

As I said, I very much applaud their motivation and initiative, but law enforcement should be left to law enforcement. While some pedos may indeed be deterred by such actions, they won't be prosecuted. And for some of them, this may only guarantee that they continue their behavior while being more cautious, which could make catching and punishing them more difficult in the future. That's the opposite of what was intended here.

I don't think it's exploitation either, but it's no secret that the network does this more for ratings than for justice. It's exactly that emphasis that makes them poor candidates for enforcing the law, and that's what caused many of the problems here. If television wants to commit time effort, money or other resources to helping catch these scumbags, then I'm all for it, but television networks should not be running sting operations.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree :smirky:

Law enforcement doesn't have the manpower, time, or money to do this, and in the case of kids I appreciate all the the help that can be offered. Seems to me in THIS case, it was the local government, not the so-called non-professionals that blew it by not alerting certain people of it being carried out. Certainly seems this could have happened if law enforcement was in charge too. I think they are just tired of being shown up by these sting operations.

Again, I understand respect what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Rhino]

I'm not sure we're in all that much disagreement. I fully support the networks devoting manpower, time and money to help catch these guys. But they should not be running sting operations. I support getting drunks off the road too, but I don't support my local TV station going out and pulling people over. We have professional law enforcement for a reason. While they certainly can make mistakes, the likeliehood is far less than that of a TV network. And having civilians enforce the law is not only a dangerous precedent, it's illegal in many jurisdictions, and for good reason.