Police

Cops Use Pictures of Adult Women To Trick Men Into Meeting for Sex, Arrest Them as Child Predators

Many alleged perpetrators, no actual victims.

|

Instead of going after actual sexual predators, some police officers have discovered that it's easier to just trick people. These cops go on adult dating sites, pose as grown women, find lonely guys, flirt, and then claim they are actually underage. The photos they send of "themselves" depict real women in their 20s. When the mark arranges a date, the cops arrest him as a predator.

These stings are the subject of a remarkable piece in The New York Times Magazine by Michael Winerip. He begins by profiling 20-year-old Jace Hambrick, a young man living at home, working in construction and doing a lot of gaming in Vancouver, Washington. When Hambrick found "Gamer Gurl" on Craigslist (which requires users to be 18) he couldn't believe his luck: A woman who professed to love gaming and was looking for a boyfriend. They chatted for awhile and then "Gamer Gurl" said she was actually 13.

"Why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?" asked Hambrick.

They emailed, then texted, and she eventually shared a photo of herself. She looked like she was in her late teens or early 20s, she made cultural references most 13-year-olds wouldn't get, and she gave Hambrick driving directions to her home. When he arrived, the person who greeted him was the same woman from the picture. But when he entered the home, two cops handcuffed him. The beautiful young woman was an adult police officer.

Hambrick was sentenced to 18-months-to life, and a minimum of 10 years on the sexual offense registry. (The "to-life" part is real: The state reserves the right to keep extending the sentence indefinitely.)

The Times article explains that cops have arrested 300 men over the past four years via what the Washington state police dubbed "Operation Net Nanny." Many end up serving more time than men convicted of actually raping real kids. The disconnect between their "crime" and the fact no flesh-and-blood child was actually ever in danger—nor were the men looking for under-age partners—does not seem to matter to the cops.

Yet a state police captain giddily described the stings as an amazing return on investment:

"Plea bargains start at 10 years in prison. Compared to other criminal cases that can take a year or longer, may result in a few years in prison, costs hundreds of man-hours and still only result in a single arrest, this is a significant return on investment. Mathematically, it only costs $2,500 per arrest during this operation! Considering the high level of potential offense, there is a meager investment that pays huge dividends."

Apparently sending people away for the longest possible time, not actually protecting the public, is the goal.

That the "meager investment" means locking away chumps who bit the confusing bait of a middle-aged male cop posing as a 20-something female cop posing as a 13-year-old female gamer, well, who cares? Think of the "dividends."

Winerip's article also details the cozy relationship between the police and a non-profit ostensibly dedicated to saving children from trafficking: Operation Underground Railroad. OUR, as it's called, donated more than $170,000 to the Washington police to support these stings. These funds "paid for additional detectives, hotels, food and overtime." Seemingly in return, the police helped the organization reap positive publicity. And of course, the more predators the cops catch, the more people are eager to donate to an organization focused on this scourge.

They must donate generously. OUR's founder, Tim Ballard, earned $343,000 in 2018. The fact that his organization supports a police operation that doesn't help any real child victims and seems to create predators out of lonely men falling for fictional characters? Details, details. Think of the dividends!

Advertisement

NEXT: Hispanic Parents Want More Choices for School

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So what was the cops response when he said do you mean 23? Why is that left out?

    1. “Why is that left out?”

      It likely was not left out because the scumbag cop would have had to work at duping someone else after reiterating she was 13 and the mark disconnecting.

      You see, if them don’t meet their duping quota then them miss out on the opportunity to get in on “These funds (which) “paid for additional detectives, hotels, food and overtime.”

      FFS he should act as his own lawyer.

      1. He didn’t disconnect retard.

        Why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?” asked Hambrick.

        They emailed, then texted, and she eventually shared a photo of herself.Yo

        Libertarians how a big old soft spot for kid fuckers. It’s weird.

        1. They take individual liberty to a ludicrous extreme because it’s all about winning “pure libertarian” pissing contests rather than acknowledging the reality that pedophiles trawling for kids on the Internet is a bad thing that should be stopped.

          1. Except he wasn’t trolling for 13 year olds, you lying liar.

            1. Really? Then why did he try to fuck her after she told him she was 13?

              1. The problem with your argument is that it misses the more important issues. In virtue theory ethics, Hambrick is not habituated toward the good (assuming he really did think that he was pursuing a minor) which makes him immoral. However, we need to realize the context of how this happened. Police posed as minors not to actually save children who are victimized by abusers but to arrest as many people as possible as cheap as possible (see police captain quote). Hambrick is morally compromised and needs help to habituate himself to the good, but he clearly wasn’t originally seeking to commit statutory rape. It was only when the police created the opportunity (after they had enticed him with what most people would assume is a woman in her twenties who met Hambrick’s preferences for video games and openly seeking a relationship) that Hambrick chose to pursue what is a morally reprehensible act. For all we know, Hambrick would have never pursued a minor if the “opportunity” was not deceptively placed in his lap without him even requesting it. The police get applause for how they are “protecting children” which none were actually protected or saved in this case. Meanwhile, children who are actually being trafficked are not being saved, and the leaders of these underground institutions are being left to continue operating. Police resources are being diverted to catch what we could call “potential criminals” rather than catching real criminals currently committing acts of aggression and saving victims who are currently undergoing abuse. It is a complete failure of the police system.

                1. So your argument is that it would have been fine if the police had used actual minors to bait Hambrick, instead of adults? That they should use actual children to converse with people who want to have sex with them? Or is your point that they shouldn’t try to catch pedophiles at all until after they’ve had sex with kids…when they’ve possibly kidnapped them or killed them or simply raped them and had a chance to destroy the evidence of their crimes?

                  Sex crimes where the perpetrator has had a chance to destroy evidence are difficult to prosecute. Sex crimes against children are difficult to prosecute even in the best of circumstances, for the simple reason that it is extremely difficult to get good testimony from them on the witness stand…if they’re even willing to testify at all. Pedophiles often get away with their crimes for years and often never face prosecution because of this. And the only alternatives to sting operations like Net Nanny are to either ignore their behavior or to only prosecute after they’ve already had sex with the child and face a likely difficult prosecution, none of which changes what was done to the child.

                  1. I would say that you can’t use a picture of someone who is clearly *not* 13 if you want to convict someone of trying to have sex with a 13 year old.

                    For starters, they could have used a picture of a 13 year old instead of an adult. Heck, it wouldn’t even have to be someone who is currently 13; the cop could have used a 10 year old picture of herself. That way you aren’t putting any minors in danger.

                    >or to only prosecute after they’ve already had sex with the child

                    “The” child? What child is that, in this case?

                    >So your argument is that it would have been fine if the police had used actual minors to bait Hambrick, instead of adults? That they should use actual children to converse with people who want to have sex with them?

                    That would obviously be problematic for other reasons. But if you can’t set up a proper sting, that doesn’t mean you can’t set up an improper one. There are lots of crimes, some serious, for which you cannot easily troll the Internet and hope someone bites.

                    1. So did Hambrick try to use that argument in his court case? He had an attorney to present it. How did that argument turn out for him when given to a jury who was presented with what he actually said and did in that online conversation?

                    2. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.CMs Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………….Click here

                    3. “So did Hambrick try to use that argument in his court case?”

                      As if the public defender’s office has time to learn the details of the actual (or in this case, imaginary) crime(s) charged and go to trial.

                    4. Why are they even doing this in the first place? Isn’t this entrapment or something? Just fight real crime, leave the fake shit to the fbi.

                    5. ” Just fight real crime, leave the fake shit to the fbi.”

                      Fighting real crime is notoriously hard work. This crap is easy, almost like a day off.

                  2. I am arguing that police infiltrate child sex rings rather than trying to attract pedophiles. It seems to me that tempting other people to do immoral actions is immoral and unjust. We are also privileged to understand innocence until proven guilty is superior to it’s alternative, and preemptive arrests would certainly follow the guilty until proven innocent mindset. Again though, I am concerned for children who are currently bring raped and otherwise abused. Get the current pedophiles organizing these injustices behind bars rather than preying on lonely men who need psychiatric care and moral guidance.

                    1. The actual pedophiles are mostly adults who can afford to pay experienced lawyers to defend them. That makes it hard to convict them.

                  3. “So your argument is that it would have been fine if the police had used actual minors to bait Hambrick, instead of adults?”

                    No, the argument is that charging him with trying to have sex with a minor when all you have is evidence of him trying to have sex with an adult woman (and honestly, not much evidence of that, either) is worthy of ridicule and should not have led to a successful prosecution.

                  4. “Sex crimes where the perpetrator has had a chance to destroy evidence are difficult to prosecute. ”

                    It should be hard to prosecute cases where the police have already destroyed the “victim”, or where the “victim” doesn’t even exist in the first place.

                2. You also seem to be passively making the argument that Hambrick was entrapped. Here is what we know about the case from the facts that are not in dispute:

                  1. Hambrick conversed with someone online.
                  2. The person told Hambrick that she was a 13 year old girl.
                  3. Hambrick arranged to have sex with her.
                  4. Hambrick was arrested, charged, and the full facts of the case were presented to a jury, who convicted him.

                  Everything else from Mrs. Skenazy’s article are post-arrest claims from Hambrick trying to mitigate the facts of the case and supposition about motives and conspiracy involving businesses arrangements of the State Patrol, providing no evidentiary basis that they are relevant to Hambrick’s case. Skenazy does not appear to have cited the court transcripts themselves, requested comment from or spoken with the State Patrol or the officers involved in the case, or provided any evidence that entrapment occurred. We are simply hearing an uncritical regurgitation of arguments from a person convicted of attempting to solicit a minor for sex.

                  It’s not disclosed whether Hambrick attempted to use any of these claims in his court case, because Skenazy does not appear to have bothered to review the court documents of the case…which are usually available to the public via online resources. If these claims were used at trial, the jury did not buy them or did not consider them compelling enough to acquit. We are just expected to accept the word of someone who was convicted of a crime, and the supposition of a journalist who appears to have half-assed her research and talked to only one party.

                  The only outrage here is terrible journalism.

                  1. >Hambrick was arrested, charged, and the full facts of the case were presented to a jury, who convicted him

                    Hambrick had a bench trial. It says so in the Times article. Your comments make repeated references to a jury, but there wasn’t one in this case.

                    >because Skenazy does not appear to have bothered to review the court documents of the case

                    Well, you couldn’t be bothered to review the article, so I guess you’re even. (On the other hand, you’re a commenter and not an article writer, so the standards are admittedly different for you.)

                    1. He had a bench trial because he opted for it. So he decided to put his future in the hands of a judge rather than a jury, because he didn’t think a jury would buy his story.

                      And the judge, who looked at all the evidence and knows the law, didn’t buy his story. So you can make all the excuses that you want for the pedophile because you feel sorry for him, but the fact is that he got a fair trial and he was convicted based on the evidence presented.

                    2. ” he got a fair trial and he was convicted based on the evidence presented.”

                      These are demonstrably false statements.
                      To most people, it seems obvious that to be convicted of attempting to commit statutory rape, there has to be an underage person involved.

                      Why doesn’t the WSP use Explorers to bait these traps the way they do when they try to bust store clerks for selling alcohol to minors. Stores can afford experienced lawyers, so when they do the alcohol stings the Explorers present their own real ID with their real ages on them.

                    3. ” (On the other hand, you’re a commenter and not an article writer, so the standards are admittedly different for you.)”

                      He is an idiot. If he’s telling the truth about working for WSP, then WSP needs better hiring standards.

                  2. Here’s a link to Hambrick’s appeal documents. You might have a look over them before spouting off again without facts:

                    https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/530252-Appellant's%20Brief.pdf

                    A few facts you failed to mention:

                    (1) The very first thing “gamer girl” told Hambrick is that she was playing a game that you could only buy if you were over 17. She had posted her ad on a site intended for adults only, and she sent him a photo of an adult woman. (You can see the photo on the NY Mag website — while I’m not certain I could guarantee her age from that photo, the forehead creases, etc. make her definitely look like mid-20s to me.)
                    (2) When “gamer girl” told him she was thirteen, Hambrick immediately responded with “xD” (laughing) and repeatedly asked whether she was joking. He explained his interest specifically in “women” for sex.
                    (3) “Gamer girl” did at some point say she wasn’t joking, but it was amidst a bunch of “lol” expressions elsewhere, implying she was saying a lot of things she wasn’t serious about.
                    (4) While they exchanged sexual banter, Hambrick at first repeatedly de-escalated and said things like “forget sex” or just asking her to “hang out” or “chill” and play games together. While he did buy condoms to be prepared for a potential sexual encounter, it’s not even clear from his attitude that he was definitely planning on a sexual hookup without first hanging out with this person… perhaps getting to know her first (during which time he might get more clear indication that she was underage… which of course, “she” was not).
                    (5) Before he even talks about coming to the house, he specifically asked if she lived alone. That seems a really weird question to ask if he actually thought she was serious about being 13, and she had so far avoided his queries about whether she was actually 23, but continued to include “lol” and emojis indicating joking. Later, he repeats his assertion that he thinks she’s joking about being 13, and the “not joking” text that eventually replies is a bit weird, immediately followed in the next few texts by LOL and continued indications that it might be a joke.
                    (6) As the texting went on, the sexual banter escalated, but there was clearly a lot of joking going on. “Gamer girl” repeatedly implies things that aren’t true and don’t come to pass, seemingly continuing a series of jokes.
                    (7) When he arrived at the house, he specifically texted “gamer girl” and asked her to come to the door to verify that she was the clearly adult woman who had sent a photo, and NOT some 13-year-old girl.
                    (8) I imagine another reason he did this was because the NY Mag article indicates he had a previous internet roleplaying encounter where he showed up at a house to meet a girl who said she was 21 and was met by a middle-aged man who apparently had pretended to be the girl (and he ended up leaving immediately). Hambrick was therefore specifically familiar with this sort of internet roleplaying.

                    There were other assumptions Hambrick made that indicated to him “gamer girl” was unlikely to be 13 — the fact that she indicated she wasn’t a virgin, that her mother apparently was letting her alone all night, the specificity of driving directions for someone who was unable to drive, and unusual use of slang that sounded like an older person.

                    Now, I think most of us can agree that if you meet someone online who claims to be 13, you should just run away. But Hambrick thought the two references to age were apparently a joke and had a lot of corroborating evidence that seemed to indicate she was likely an adult, including her photo, which was literally of a 24-year-old woman. And said 24-year-old woman met him at the door, and the moment he entered, he was placed under arrest.

                    The standard is “reasonable doubt.” Can you honestly say under these circumstances — when everything about a person indicates she is an adult other than a couple references in texts surrounded by “lol” — that Hambrick was *specifically* intending to have sex with a minor? Or that he wouldn’t have asked some questions to verify her age as an adult before proceeding? Or, for that matter, that he even specifically *intended* to *necessarily* have sex given his repeated references to just “hanging out” and gaming? It would seem that to convict someone of attempted rape, there must be a clear indication that they would *definitely* go through with having sex, and the evidence seems murky.

                    To me, the transcript indicates there’s pretty clear evidence that (1) Hambrick thought this person was joking about being 13, (2) that there were too many joking references in the transcript to clearly indicate that any specific statement was taken seriously (including the one place where the detective said it wasn’t a joke… which was specifically followed up by Hambrick poking fun at losing virginity in a way that seems to indicate a kind of “winking” tone that none of this is serious, to which the detective responded with joking emojis and such).

                    There’s plenty of room for reasonable doubt here, as it reads to me very much like a “role playing” scenario with lots of joking and winking. Do I agree this guy made a very poor decision by going to a house without first *confirming* that the person he was talking to was an adult? Sure. I personally would never do such a thing. But almost all the evidence suggested she was an adult who was likely joking.

                    Also, we should note that this Net Nanny program apparently has a rate of “catching criminals” where 90% of them don’t follow standard profiles for actual pedophiles. Actual pedophiles tend to have repeated encounters, access and/or own child pornography, and have other traits, while a large proportion of the “Net Nanny” people don’t have these traits, including Hambrick. That alone should raise red flags, aside from the specifics of this case.

                    1. Lol nerd should be in jail for having no game.

                    2. Thank you for taking the time to write a clear summary of the appeal facts.

                    3. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. SAe Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

                      ================= CashApp

                  3. Gee this topic sure is important to Hoot Smawley! Wonder why he’s so obsessed? What can cultural wisdom tell us?

                    He who denied it, supplied it…

                  4. Here is what we know about the case from the facts that are not in dispute:

                    1. Hambrick conversed with someone online.
                    2. The person told Hambrick that she was a 13 year old girl.
                    3. Hambrick arranged to have sex with her.
                    4. Hambrick was arrested, charged, and the full facts of the case were presented to a jury, who convicted him.”

                    You left out 2.5. The person is a fully-grown, mature woman.

                    1. No jury. Learn to read before commenting incorrectly.

              2. “Really? Then why did he try to fuck her after she told him she was 13?”

                Oops! You forgot to provide any evidence that supports your claim.

          2. ” pedophiles trawling for kids on the Internet is a bad thing that should be stopped.”

            This operation appears to be designed to avoid encountering any actual pedophiles.

        2. This is a case where the transcript would be extremely helpful. If it’s clear that he knows she’s 13, that’s one thing. If she never responded to his question, or responded with “Here’s a picture”, and it’s obviously not a 13-year-old, that’s seriously fucked up.

          1. You can’t tell if she is or isn’t 13 from a photo. Not all girls age at the same rate. I’ve met 13 year olds who could *easily* pass for early 20s.

            Once she told him she was 13 and never said otherwise, trying to have sex with her was a crime. And I used to work for the Washington State Patrol and am familiar with Operation Net Nanny…they don’t prosecute unless the guy explicitly requests sex and they have clear evidence that he believed she was 13. His story is most likely post-arrest revisionism…because he got caught trying to fuck a kid.

            1. Why would anyone who’s TRYING to have sex with a minor go to a source that has an age requirement? There have to be better places to go to do that.

            2. “And I used to work for the Washington State Patrol”
              So, fuck off slaver.

              1. Better watch your browsing habits, pedo.

                1. When ANTIFA comes for you, don’t ask me for help.

                  1. If Antifa comes from me, the pedos will be the ones in their ranks, so why would I ask you for help?

                    1. When you have lost the support of white, middle-class, mid-western and rural, veteran voters like me, you are done.

                      Your posts on this page illustrate the reasons why cops deserve the treatment they are getting from the people and politicians today.

                      YOU deserve it.

                      More cops have been arrested this year than I have ever seen before and when you are in court and telling me how afraid for your lives you were when you were just following orders I will personally ask the judge to throw the book at you and make it hurt.

                      Voters like me supported you for years. Not anymore.

                      We will lock you in with the pedos.

                      If you think that doesn’t matter, you deserve it.

                2. That’s funny, hoots. I used to work for the wsp too and I don’t remember you…

                  1. Probably because it’s not my actual name, idiot. And the State Patrol is a big organization. They have a fairly large state to cover.

                    1. ” the State Patrol is a big organization. They have a fairly large state to cover.”

                      Yeah, but there’s not actual crime in the whole state that demands their attention, so they can spend time and money creating fake crimes to prosecute.

                  2. And if you worked for the State Patrol, you’d be familiar with Net Nanny and what it requires for the state to be willing to prosecute one of the people they caught. Care to speak to that?

                    1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.NFg Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………….Click here

                3. “Better watch your browsing habits, pedo.”

                  Says the guy who goes on to brag about how many 13-year-olds he knows…

            3. I call BS on your claim of 13 year olds who look like they’re in their 20s. Maybe an elderly person with bad eyesight and a fading memory of what it was like to be a teenager would get confused, but not a 20-year old.

              1. Everyone develops differently. And it doesn’t matter if she looks 13 or 23. Once she said she was 13, he was wrong for trying to hook up.

                And that is how he got prosecuted…because he got caught red-handed trying to hook up with a teenager, regardless of what he claimed after the arrest when he’s trying to talk his way out of it.

                1. “ And that is how he got prosecuted…because he got caught red-handed trying to hook up with a teenager,”

                  Then it should be easy enough for the State to produce said teenager. Where is this teenager he got caught red-handed with?

                2. “And that is how he got prosecuted…because he got caught red-handed trying to hook up with a teenager”

                  Except that this is not true. He got caught red-handed trying to have sex with grown woman. Which is not a crime unless there is lack of consent.

            4. Doesn’t she *actually need to be 13*. If a 30-year old tells you she’s 13, is it actually a crime to sleep with her, just because she *said* she’s 13? (I’m sure there are consenting adults who roleplay highschool teacher/student scenarios, i suppose they’re all actual pedophiles instead of consenting adults because one is pretending to be under age).

              1. “She looked old enough” is not a defense in court, although many pedophiles try it.

                If he got rolled up and prosecuted by Net Nanny, he was told she was 13, he was never told she wasn’t 13, and his transcript showed clearly that he believed he was trying to have sex with a minor. And he doesn’t even bother claiming that he was told otherwise, because he wasn’t.

                1. “‘She looked old enough’ is not a defense in court, although many pedophiles try it.”

                  On the other hand, though, “she WAS old enough” *is* an actual defense in court against an accusation of statutory rape. And the woman in question here used as bait in photos and in person was actually 24.

                2. “If he got rolled up and prosecuted by Net Nanny, he was told she was 13, he was never told she wasn’t 13, and his transcript showed clearly that he believed he was trying to have sex with a minor.”

                  You’re saying that all Net Nanny transcripts show clearly that the target believed he was trying to have sex with a minor. Did you mean to say that all the transcripts are altered to show what the WSP wants it to say?

            5. I used to work for the Washington State Patrol

              Oh, why didn’t you say so up front? Now we know why you’re trying to pretend that entrapment is a good thing.

              Fuck off, slaver.

              -jcr

            6. “You can’t tell if she is or isn’t 13 from a photo. Not all girls age at the same rate. I’ve met 13 year olds who could *easily* pass for early 20s.”

              It’s a crime to have sex with 13-year-olds, even they look 20. It’s not a crime to have sex with 20-year-olds, even if they like to pretend to be 13.

            7. “Once she told him she was 13 and never said otherwise, trying to have sex with her was a crime.”

              really? What crime is it to try to have sex with a woman of legal age who pretends not to be of age?

            8. “His story is most likely post-arrest revisionism…because he got caught trying to fuck a kid.”

              Speaking of post-arrest revisionism, nobody got caught trying to fuck a kid. There was no kid to fuck. Just people of age, who like to roleplay. Do they only assign pedophiles to this task force, since they’d know what would get a “pedo” to bite on the bait? Do they get embarrassed, when it turns out that the target of the sting is himself underaged? Do they bust their own operatives for trying to arrange a sexual liaison with a minor when that happens?

          2. ” If it’s clear that he knows she’s 13″

            She’s not 13. Nobody in this whole story is actually 13.

        3. Identify the kid being fucked in this case.

          1. Wanting to fuck kids and failing is almost worse.

            1. And trying to fuck kids is a criminal offense.

              1. “trying to fuck kids is a criminal offense.”

                Which presents an evidentiary problem.
                “Officer, point to the kid the defendant tried to fuck.”

                Trying to fuck imaginary children is an imaginary crime.

            2. So, you’re saying you can’t identify a kid being fucked, or any kid at all in this scenario. Got it.

            3. “Wanting to fuck kids and failing is almost worse.”

              We can’t all be as successful with the kids as you, studmuffin.

        4. “They emailed, then texted, and she eventually shared a photo of herself.Yo
          Libertarians how a big old soft spot for kid fuckers. It’s weird.”

          Yeah. she eventually shared a photo of her (not 13-year-old) self.

          Unless the age of consent in Vancouver is 25, there isn’t an actual crime here.

    2. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●
       
      I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
      ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

      HERE► Read More

    3. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks……….

    4. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks………. Read More

    5. To bad Hambrick didn’t send a 13 year old boy up to the door. The cops would have had to arrest themselves.

    6. That’s my question. The NY Times article doesn’t answer, but then later on says she claimed it again (but doesn’t indicate if this was the same conversation or month’s later or what). If the police are using adults in the photos, it sure seems like “I didn’t actually think she was underage” would be a valid defense, since intent to commit a crime is the only charge here (no statutory rape actually occurred), but that seems like a confusing interaction. It’s possible the Times is glossing over more incriminating behaviors, but if that’s the case why write the article at all?

      If I had to guess, I’d guess that police used the bare minimum to trap him, because as soon as he didn’t run off after the first statement they concluded he was a pedo and their main goal became to arrest him no matter what.

    7. This practice is completely Unamerican . Simply put. If I’m bored and meet someone on line who says she is a 12 year old girl who’s into kinky sex and wants to meet me I realize I could and probably am talking to a 50 year old male pervert pretending to be a little girl. If I show up to meet this 12 year old girl no one has a clue how I would react. I’m a 61 year old papa and currently daddy to a 6 year old girl. I would put that 12 year old over my knee and beat her little ass then either call the police or her parents. Police are interfering with a child’s community socialization doing this. The police have probably imprisoned good men doing this.

  2. Huge dividends? Has anyone seen the check yet? Mine must have gotten lost in the mail with my ballot.

    1. I got your ballot, but not your check.
      I think the guy that came to steal your ballot from me got the check instead. Seems it was more then he was getting paid to steal ballots.

      1. Trump told you to try to vote twice, but he meant try to vote twice as yourself.

  3. The fact that he talks about these arrests and prison sentences as a “return on investment” is beyond disgusting. It’s like they’re done pretending that the justice system isn’t being influenced by Big Prison Inc. and are now being outright smug about it.

    I’m trying not to go full ACAB here, especially since I have family and friends in law enforcement, but shit like this is pushing me ever closer.

    1. Call a lawyer and state that the questionable comments were made on a “pedophile role-playing anime imageboard”.

    2. I don’t necessarily agree that this is Big Prison, so much as a result of Big Police.

      For 60 years, the police force has justified massive budgets based on the war on drugs. And now that 60% of their business (Marijuana Crimes) is disappearing, they need a new crisis to work with.

      Notice that these stings took place in washington, one of the first states to legalize MJ. This is just a preview of where things are going in the future.

      1. Why do you think they suddenly started all the “human trafficking” task forces? When 99 percent of it is just plain old prostitution like before.

        1. Plain old prostitution like before had a good amount of human trafficking to it.

    3. I expect a return on investment, whether it’s my stocks or my taxes. I don’t want cops spending massive amounts of money to arrest some hookers and johns, that’s a poor return on my tax investment. But nabbing guys who willingly meet for sex with people they think are 13 is a good return. It doesn’t matter that she wasn’t 13, he thought she was. The sad part of this is that you can actually schtup with a 13 year old and get less time.

      1. Reason logo
        HOME
        LATEST
        MAGAZINE
        VIDEO
        PODCASTS
        VOLOKH
        NEWSLETTERS
        DONATE
        SUBSCRIBE

        Search for:
        POLICE

        Cops Use Pictures of Adult Women To Trick Men Into Meeting for Sex, Arrest Them as Child Predators
        Many alleged perpetrators, no actual victims.
        LENORE SKENAZY | 9.4.2020 2:58 PM

        dreamstime_xxl_69423969
        (Ocusfocus | Dreamstime.com)
        Instead of going after actual sexual predators, some police officers have discovered that it’s easier to just trick people. These cops go on adult dating sites, pose as grown women, find lonely guys, flirt, and then claim they are actually underage. The photos they send of “themselves” depict real women in their 20s. When the mark arranges a date, the cops arrest him as a predator.

        These stings are the subject of a remarkable piece in The New York Times Magazine by Michael Winerip. He begins by profiling 20-year-old Jace Hambrick, a young man living at home, working in construction and doing a lot of gaming in Vancouver, Washington. When Hambrick found “Gamer Gurl” on Craigslist (which requires users to be 18) he couldn’t believe his luck: A woman who professed to love gaming and was looking for a boyfriend. They chatted for awhile and then “Gamer Gurl” said she was actually 13.

        “Why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?” asked Hambrick.

        They emailed, then texted, and she eventually shared a photo of herself. She looked like she was in her late teens or early 20s, she made cultural references most 13-year-olds wouldn’t get, and she gave Hambrick driving directions to her home. When he arrived, the person who greeted him was the same woman from the picture. But when he entered the home, two cops handcuffed him. The beautiful young woman was an adult police officer.

        Hambrick was sentenced to 18-months-to life, and a minimum of 10 years on the sexual offense registry. (The “to-life” part is real: The state reserves the right to keep extending the sentence indefinitely.)

        The Times article explains that cops have arrested 300 men over the past four years via what the Washington state police dubbed “Operation Net Nanny.” Many end up serving more time than men convicted of actually raping real kids. The disconnect between their “crime” and the fact no flesh-and-blood child was actually ever in danger—nor were the men looking for under-age partners—does not seem to matter to the cops.

        Yet a state police captain giddily described the stings as an amazing return on investment:

        “Plea bargains start at 10 years in prison. Compared to other criminal cases that can take a year or longer, may result in a few years in prison, costs hundreds of man-hours and still only result in a single arrest, this is a significant return on investment. Mathematically, it only costs $2,500 per arrest during this operation! Considering the high level of potential offense, there is a meager investment that pays huge dividends.”

        Apparently sending people away for the longest possible time, not actually protecting the public, is the goal.

        That the “meager investment” means locking away chumps who bit the confusing bait of a middle-aged male cop posing as a 20-something female cop posing as a 13-year-old female gamer, well, who cares? Think of the “dividends.”

        Winerip’s article also details the cozy relationship between the police and a non-profit ostensibly dedicated to saving children from trafficking: Operation Underground Railroad. OUR, as it’s called, donated more than $170,000 to the Washington police to support these stings. These funds “paid for additional detectives, hotels, food and overtime.” Seemingly in return, the police helped the organization reap positive publicity. And of course, the more predators the cops catch, the more people are eager to donate to an organization focused on this scourge.

        They must donate generously. OUR’s founder, Tim Ballard, earned $343,000 in 2018. The fact that his organization supports a police operation that doesn’t help any real child victims and seems to create predators out of lonely men falling for fictional characters? Details, details. Think of the dividends!

        Recommended videosPowered by AnyClip
        Man arrested for prank calling pizza parlours
        Play

        Unmute
        Duration
        1:07
        /
        Current Time
        0:00

        Fullscreen
        Up Next

        Advertisement

        NEXT: Hispanic Parents Want More Choices for School

        LENORE SKENAZY is president of Let Grow, a nonprofit promoting childhood independence and resilience, and founder of the Free-Range Kids movement.

        POLICE
        FREE-RANGE KIDS
        MEDIA CONTACT & REPRINT REQUESTS

        Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

        Matt Buckalew
        September.4.2020 at 3:06 pm
        So what was the cops response when he said do you mean 23? Why is that left out?

        Jury Nullification
        September.4.2020 at 3:20 pm
        “Why is that left out?”

        It likely was not left out because the scumbag cop would have had to work at duping someone else after reiterating she was 13 and the mark disconnecting.

        You see, if them don’t meet their duping quota then them miss out on the opportunity to get in on “These funds (which) “paid for additional detectives, hotels, food and overtime.”

        FFS he should act as his own lawyer.

        Matt Buckalew
        September.4.2020 at 5:49 pm
        He didn’t disconnect retard.

        Why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?” asked Hambrick.

        They emailed, then texted, and she eventually shared a photo of herself.Yo

        Libertarians how a big old soft spot for kid fuckers. It’s weird.

        Hoot Smawley
        September.4.2020 at 6:32 pm
        They take individual liberty to a ludicrous extreme because it’s all about winning “pure libertarian” pissing contests rather than acknowledging the reality that pedophiles trawling for kids on the Internet is a bad thing that should be stopped.

        DenverJ
        September.4.2020 at 9:25 pm
        Except he wasn’t trolling for 13 year olds, you lying liar.

        Hoot Smawley
        September.5.2020 at 1:48 am
        Really? Then why did he try to fuck her after she told him she was 13?

        NotGoingtoArgueWithYou
        September.5.2020 at 7:47 am
        The problem with your argument is that it misses the more important issues. In virtue theory ethics, Hambrick is not habituated toward the good (assuming he really did think that he was pursuing a minor) which makes him immoral. However, we need to realize the context of how this happened. Police posed as minors not to actually save children who are victimized by abusers but to arrest as many people as possible as cheap as possible (see police captain quote). Hambrick is morally compromised and needs help to habituate himself to the good, but he clearly wasn’t originally seeking to commit statutory rape. It was only when the police created the opportunity (after they had enticed him with what most people would assume is a woman in her twenties who met Hambrick’s preferences for video games and openly seeking a relationship) that Hambrick chose to pursue what is a morally reprehensible act. For all we know, Hambrick would have never pursued a minor if the “opportunity” was not deceptively placed in his lap without him even requesting it. The police get applause for how they are “protecting children” which none were actually protected or saved in this case. Meanwhile, children who are actually being trafficked are not being saved, and the leaders of these underground institutions are being left to continue operating. Police resources are being diverted to catch what we could call “potential criminals” rather than catching real criminals currently committing acts of aggression and saving victims who are currently undergoing abuse. It is a complete failure of the police system.

      2. ” It doesn’t matter that she wasn’t 13″

        The thing is, is that it should have.
        If they’d had sex, then he would be guilty of consensual sex with a woman in her early 20’s, which is not a criminal act. They didn’t have sex, so they could charge him with attempting to have consensual sex with a woman in her early 20’s, which also is not a criminal act. So they charged him with attempting to have sex with a non-existent 13-year-old. There’s still no victim of any “crime” you can charge him with.

      3. “It doesn’t matter that she wasn’t 13, he thought she was.” He thought she was a 20-something woman who was role-playing 13. The website where he met her is for people over 18 (a strange place to be trolling if the cops were actually after pedophiles). They talked about a game that isn’t sold to minors. The photograph wasn’t of a 13-year old. Her conversation was rather sophisticated for a 13 year old.

  4. So, what does “reasonable doubt” even mean these days?

    1. Not a typo, it seems – – – – – – – –

  5. Take no plea. Americans in general, and fraudulently accused individuals in particular, sure accept a whole lotta tyranny.

    1. This FA doesn’t say whether he was convicted or took a deal, but it’s hard to imagine a worse sentence that what he got. It’s also hard to imagine a jury going along with this. Either way, it’s fucked, and he’s fucked.

      I also don’t see how this is not entrapment. It was an adult web site with a lying cop.

      There is nothing I like about cops, nothing I respect. Scumbags the lot.

      1. See the story as previously linked from HyR. He took a bench trial, which seems reasonable because judges might not be as easy to manipulate as a jury, and the judge could decide to look at more evidence instead of ruling that it must be kept away from a jury, and the trial looked like it was going his way based on the testimony.

        The trouble is that it’s not at all hard to imagine a jury going along with this. Anyway, he’s out now, got out as early as permissible.

        1. I just kinda figure that with a jury trial, the lawyer gets to ask the kid questions with answers like “there was no actual 13 year old involved in these conversations” and “nothing in the conversation or photographs indicated that this conversation was with an actual 13 year old” and “I never once had any intention of having sex with a 13 year old”.

          1. Except, of course, when he tried to fuck her after she told him she was 13. That seems to prove intent.

            1. Unless you’ve got actual evidence to back that up, you’re just speculating.

              1. And if you translate “goes to someone’s house” as “trying to fuck them” I shudder to think what Thanksgiving at your mother’s place must be like.

                1. Never eat the turkey at Hoot’s house.

                  1. “… this doesn’t taste like stuffing…”

                  2. If you’re coming to my house with the expectation that you’re going to have sex with a 13 year old girl and I know that, you definitely don’t want to eat any food I serve you. Actually, you really don’t want to be there at all…because your evening will not go well for you.

                    1. Somebody prefers to keep the 13-year-olds for himself.

                    2. Is this why they won’t let you chaperone the high-school dances any more?

                2. So is that the story you’re going to try to tell when it’s your appearance on “To Catch A Predator”? That you were just innocently visiting for a meal?

                  Because I doubt that will go as well as you think.

                  1. “So is that the story you’re going to try to tell when it’s your appearance on ‘To Catch A Predator’?”

                    Why are they trying to catch predators at your house?

              2. Unless you’ve got actual evidence to back that up

                You mean like the prosecutor charging him? Apparently they had the evidence to back it up if they took it to court.

                1. The old “if the prosecutor charged him, he must have been guilty” theory?

            2. “Except, of course, when he tried to fuck her after she told him she was 13. That seems to prove intent.”

              If he’d tried to fuck her after she turned out to be actually 13, that would be a crime. What crime is it to fuck a woman who is 24 but likes to pretend to be 13?

          2. Those questions were asked at trial, which is why he though it was going well for him. If he’d wanted sex with a 13 YO, then when he got there he would’ve asked for the 13 YO instead of the grown lady who answered the door.

            If these cops were sincere about catching pedophiles, rather than just trawling for lonely men in general, why would they station the grown lady matching the picture, at the door at all? It’s like they did everything they could to not catch pedophiles, and inserted the minimum bit of evidence they thought they might get away with (a single text saying she was 13) instead.

            1. If he’d wanted sex with a 13 YO, then when he got there he would’ve asked for the 13 YO instead of the grown lady who answered the door.

              “Hello, ma’am, is your underaged daughter home? I’m here to have sex with her. Would you fetch her, please”

              You realize that pedophiles don’t generally broadcast what they’re trying to do with kids, right? They actually realize that what they’re doing is criminal.

              1. You do realize that they do it with people who are actually underaged, right?

                If a 20-year-old woman wants to say she’s 13 before she has sex, it’s still a 20-year-old woman, not a 13-year-old girl, who’s having the sex.

              2. “‘Hello, ma’am, is your underaged daughter home? I’m here to have sex with her. Would you fetch her, please’

                You realize that pedophiles don’t generally broadcast what they’re trying to do with kids, right? They actually realize that what they’re doing is criminal”

                You do realize that your two paragraphs are incompatible with each other, right? That was on purpose, right?

      2. It’s also hard to imagine a jury going along with this.

        If only that were the case.

  6. So they are protecting potential child victims by setting up stings to catch potential “predators” before they can possibly commit any real crimes…

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    1. “Am I understanding this correctly?”

      Not at all.

    2. “Am I understanding this correctly?

      You are most definitely not.

      1. Check your sarcasm filter; it might need twerking.

        1. Too convincing. Filter gladly adjusted.

    3. Minus the “and instead of looking for people trolling for 12 year old kids they go out and pretend to be adults who want to hook up, but drop a quick sentence fragment that says they are under age at some point to create a fiction that a crime is being committed” part.

      This should not be a crime. Buying drugs is a crime. Buying drugs from a fake drug dealer is still buying drugs (which I disagree with criminalizing, but I digress). But talking to a 23 year old woman who reached out to you about meeting up is a crime because the 23 year old woman happens to be pretending to be under age?

      This is nonsense. Any single 20 year old dude could get entrapped by that. Hot chick messages you and says she is interested? And talks like a 23 year old about 23 year old stuff?

      And the criminal act is “I am 13”?

      So if we start talking about hooking up and at some point I claim to be 14, even though I have a 13 year old kid of my own… suddenly you are a criminal? Does that only work if you are a LEO doing a sting operation??

      So if I’m a smoking hot 22 year old woman, can I go to the club, chat up 20 guys and drop “I am 15” into the conversation at some point, then ask them each to meet me.. or even call me later…. did I just manufacture a bunch of felons?

      This sounds ludicrous on the face of it.

      1. Much like prostitution raids such as Operation Cross Country. Gives agencies an opportunity to spend lots of money and have a photo op or two while claiming to protect children or catch human traffickers when they actually don’t. What’s a vice cop to do but catch people committing vice? Or maybe just thinking about it.

        1. You have to look at it from a cop’s perspective. Actual human traffickers might have guns and shoot at you.

          1. “You have to look at it from the cops perspective… ”
            They want to fuck kids, AND get paid to eliminate their competition.

            1. If they do, they probably shouldn’t still be cops.

      2. did I just manufacture a bunch of felons?

        Only if they call you back.

        Theoretically, the “evidence” of a crime was that even after she said she was 13, he showed up at the house.

        1. But the FACTS are that there was never any conversation with a 13 year old, let alone sex.

          1. … and let alone force-able sexual encounter…. Which just a few decades back was the very meaning of “rape”.

            Today’s definition; talking to a 24-yr old woman who (lol..) pretends to be 13 = “rape”.

        2. can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that if he showed up and found an actual 13 yr. that he would have had sex with her? He went over there as he was pretty sure she wasn’t. Most guys in that situation would not

        3. “Theoretically, the ‘evidence’ of a crime was that even after she said she was 13, he showed up at the house.”

          Is it a crime to go to a house where a 13-year-old lives? How about a place where a person who lies about being 13 lives? Which of these crimes was the defendant charged with?

      3. Is buying fake drugs from a real drug dealer a crime?
        What about fake drugs from a fake dealer?

        1. Yep, attempted possession of a controlled substance, and sale/delivery of an imitation controlled substance, both crimes, as absurd as that is.

      4. “Buying drugs from a fake drug dealer is still buying drugs”

        So can this ‘fake drug dealer’ be charged with possession of illegal drugs? Drug-dealing? Why not?

      5. “So if we start talking about hooking up and at some point I claim to be 14, even though I have a 13 year old kid of my own… suddenly you are a criminal? Does that only work if you are a LEO doing a sting operation?? ”

        In theory, if you said you were 14, the detective would arrest himself because he was trying to arrange a sexual encounter involving a minor, then the feds would arrest him again, because he planned to videotape it.

  7. The “child” endangered was older than the adult imprisoned for “endangering” her.

    1. This actually happens.

      I don’t have any recent events in mind, but back when I was in school I wrote a paper on the topic and there was one specific case from Washington DC that caught my attention enough that I remember it all these years later.

      17 year old girl starts dating 13 year old boy. She is his first girlfriend. He is … well, not her first.

      17 year old girl’s father finds out that they are having sex. Blows his stack. Calls police.

      13 year old boy is arrested and charged with statutory rape and corrupting the morals of a minor. Charged as an adult.

      She is 3 months from her 18th birthday. He is barely 13.

      He is convicted of felony statutory rape and contributing to the morals of a minor. She is not charged.

      Complicating factor: Her dad is a big-shot attorney in town. Boy’s family is broken and poor.

      So he had to spend the next 7 years in Juvenile prison, before being transferred to an adult prison.

      And people wonder why I became a libertarian.

      1. That’s exceptionally fucked, but I don’t disbelieve it. :-/

        1. Stories like this tickled my sense of outrage and formed the nacient libertarian inside.

          When I was young, prime time news magazine shows frequently featured this sort of outrage story.

          60 minutes had the story of a Naval officer who had his kids taken by DCF. One day he is washing dishes in the sink and he hears his daughter screaming in the back yard. He sees some woman pulling her as she has a death grip on the fence. He runs out with his service pistol and is greeted by a Sheriff’s deputy who places him under arrest.

          A neighbor has filed a complaint. They are taking the kids. He has just validated the complaint by resisting. (no notice, the first he learns of it is a woman kidnapping his daughter in the back yard)

          He beats back assault charges, but they won’t return the kids. 2 years go by. Finally he moves out and they get a divorce so that the wife can have the kids back. He is allowed 1 hour supervised visits once per month.

          On the basis of a neighbor grudge calling the police. No evidence of any abuse found. Ever. The courts even acknowledge this. But they don’t have to give a crap, so they don’t. Case worker is mad, and she doesn’t want the kids back with him. So they aren’t. I think they eventually moved out of state (separately) and he resigned his commission so they could reunite as a family.

          There were lots more details … stuff about interviewing the kids and not letting them into the house… but the big picture is the point… the state screwing with a family just because they can.

          20/20, Nightline, etc. All of those shows used to do this sort of story on a semi-regular basis. At least a few times a year.

          You don’t see those so much any more. Not on network TV anyway.

          Most of those shows have moved on to “portrait of a serial killer” type stuff to go along with the propaganda of the day.

          1. Dang, that one’s also fucked.

            Also shows a lot of restraint.

          2. I know exactly what you’re talking about with the 1990s network TV news magazines. Back when John Stossel was a network news star. Then there was the PBS Ofra Bikel (sp?) docs on the Satanic Panic. Those were different times. Off course there was also stoking of fear-mongering moral panics and un-skeptical takes on bizarre shit like “facilitated communication” as well. Although that last one was a decade or so earlier, IIRC.

            1. No, FC was a big thing in the 1990s. Both the promotion as a miracle and the debunking.

    2. The law is predisposed to assign guilt regardless of facts. If it’s an adult you think is a child, guilty. If it’s a child you think is an adult, guilty. Or in this case, it’s…so fucked up I can hardly categorize it.

  8. Good thing there’s no real crimes going on so we can afford to spend resources on this shit. But, hey, at least if we ever want to cut the budget and need to get rid of some fat we know where to start.

  9. Hambrick was sentenced to 18-months-to life…The state reserves the right to keep extending the sentence indefinitely.

    1. AYFKM?
    2. 8th Amendment?
    3. Coming to a Kamala administration near you.

    1. Registered sex offender is not punishment, it is preventative detainment until he is cured. It was in the news this last week or so, I kid you not.

      1. Yeah, but that’s the actual jail time sentence, not referring to sex offender registry.

      2. 18 months to life is punishment, if he’s held in a prison. Not to mention total bullshit.

      3. “Registered sex offender is not punishment”

        that’s the official Supreme Court position on the subject, based on the federal registry, which doesn’t actually do anything other than maintain the listing. Some states have added a number of restrictions on registrants that haven’t been reviewed by the Supremes.

        The real problem with the “sex-offender registry” is that that there are a number of ways to get on it that have nothing to do with sex offending. Get caught peeing on the wall of the bar right after closing time? That’s a sex offense.

  10. Hey reason… more please!

    This sort of thing is important to liberty.

    And I would love a follow up with more detail. Why guilty? Was the plea deal so much lighter than the sentence he’d face that he couldn’t risk it? What about his attorney? Is the dude at all competent? Could anyone in that circumstance possibly afford competent counsel?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    What about the prosecutor? Some nice quotes about how they really are dangerous predators despite all evidence to the contrary would be fun. I love it when they double down on the evil sociopathy. Like the prosecutor who had the child rapist exonerated by DNA claiming that “that semen could have gotten into that 8 year old girl’s panties at any point in time”. Those quotes are golden!

    1. ” Was the plea deal so much lighter than the sentence he’d face that he couldn’t risk it? What about his attorney? Is the dude at all competent? Could anyone in that circumstance possibly afford competent counsel? ”

      Answers to some of these questions can be reasonably inferred. The sentence for sex crimes is greatly inflated. This is because of the popular misinformation that sex offenders can’t be rehabilitated. This lets prosecutors offer plea deals with fairly heavy jail time. The competence of the defense lawyer doesn’t make much difference. since the client, not the lawyer decides whether or not to accept the plea deal. The job of the public defender is to negotiate the best possible plea deal, but they don’t have much to negotiate with, they have so many clients at any one time, they can’t afford the time to actually take cases to trial. People accused of sex crimes have no leverage

  11. Being a cop or a prosecutor must require a deranged mind – Kamala for President anyone?

    1. You’re at least 4 years too early.

      1. … or four months too late.

  12. The cops get away with this shit because 1) people are morons, 2) many people are moral relativists, and 3) no one has sympathy for sexual predators. Never mind that no one ensnared by this egregious deformation of “justice” has been demonstrated as a danger to children.

    To be honest, I wouldn’t even trust a jury to be impartial about this. A large subset of the population seems to think anyone who glances at a child sideways is some sort of sexual deviant. It’s why men joke about not wanting to be left alone with kids; our puritan society is too eager to rush to judgement, to assume the contents of a person’s mind, and to brand them a sexual heretic. Just look at the wig-out over the “Cuties” movie coming to Netflix.

    https://tinyurl.com/y5k36pc9

    1. Yep yep here it is. Inevitably twenty comments in at that most you get spent but like this. “Why’s society act so fucked up when I wolf whistle at a eleven year old. It’s not like we did anything. Roman Polanski did nothing wrong.”

      1. Okay, so you are retarded, your other posts make way more sense now.

    2. I work at a school- k to 8th grade. It’s not a joke. I am constantly reminding myself of the danger. But I still hug the kids, love the kids, and will sacrifice my life to defend the kids. None of which would protect me from an unfounded accusation. No, it’s not a joke.

      1. “It’s why men joke about not wanting to be left alone with kids”

        That’s not a joke.

        We had a local elementary school teacher accused of improper conduct with one of his students. He was a good looking, popular teacher with both faculty and students.

        One little girl was infatuated with him. She got in trouble for talking and disrupting his class. Her feelings hurt, she decided to tell her parents that they kissed and made out. The guy was immediately placed on administrative leave, and an investigation started. It didn’t take long for the other parents and community to hear about it.

        Come to find out, the guy always watched out for things like this. There were time stamped school cameras all over the place that showed he was never alone with the child and didn’t lay a finger on her. If there was any chance that it might be conceived that he was alone, he put is cell phone on record(not disclosed to the public..private recordings in the presence of children can become “iffy”). The girl was lying and the guy had recordings to prove it.

        So, he was “exonerated” but now faces a choice. Does he go back to the same school where some parents still believe the child? The same school in which his accuser still attends? Does he stay in the same school system where he is now know as “that guy”?

        The guy ended up teaching at another school in the same school system. However, this event has him marked. He can’t afford another accusation and is walking on even more fragile eggshells. Between his nerves and pubic perception, his carrier is over. It’s just a matter of time. And you wonder why guys don’t become teachers?

        What happen to his accuser? Expelled? Disciplined? Nope. She just learned that if a man pisses you off, you can effectively have him removed from the situation with one little lie.

    3. no one has sympathy for sexual predators.

      I beg to differ. Plenty of assholes in Berkeley, CA sympathized with Walter Been. The press tends to gloss over the fact that Harvey Milk had a penchant for fucking underage boys.

      -jcr

  13. Has any one of these 300 men ever gone to a jury trial? Surely the cops engineer the interaction to where a judge would end up basically instructing a jury to convict, so maybe it’s a lost cause.

    1. “Surely the cops engineer the interaction to where a judge would end up basically instructing a jury to convict, so maybe it’s a lost cause.”
      No need. An accusation of a sex crime is enough to convince most people of guilt.

  14. Can we just legalize prostitution already?

    1. With 13 year olds?

      No.

      1. Nobody in this story was 13, you mendacious prick. Even the guy convicted believed it was just a typo. So, you know, go fuck a cactus.

        1. That’s not what he thought. He thought he was going to have sex with a 13 year old girl…because he was told she was 13.

          Even the guy convicted believed it was just a typo

          Unless, of course, he was lying because he got caught. That he got convicted indicates the jury didn’t buy his story. And the jury saw the transcripts, not just a Reason writer’s summary of them.

          1. One of those mindreaders, eh? Don’t say it’s years on the job, it’s just bias and close-mindedness. The same goes for the WSP program, the dudes they arrest may be looking for underaged strange, they may not. Fucking people in the harshest way because you ‘knew’ what they were thinking or ‘really meant’ is a trait of the very worst petty tyrants.

            1. Maybe they like having sex with adults who pretend to be underage. Somebody’s buying all those “naughty schoolgirl” halloween costumes.

              1. They don’t come in child sizes.

          2. “Unless, of course, he was lying because he got caught.”

            Or he thought she was. It’s not illegal to have sex with someone who’s lying about their age, unless they actually ARE under the age of consent.

            “That he got convicted indicates the jury didn’t buy his story. And the jury saw the transcripts”

            Bench trial. No jury.

          3. Christ, what an asshole.

          4. “ Unless, of course, he was lying because he got caught.“

            Maybe he was lying. But we know without a doubt the girl was lying.

          5. “Unless, of course, he was lying because he got caught.”

            Maybe he was lying, maybe not. Thing is the prosecution is supposed to prove it to get a conviction.

            Maybe she was lying and didn’t actually claim to be 13.

          6. “That’s not what he thought.”

            Thank you, Karnak, for telling us what thoughts this poor fool had in his head. Without your mystical power, we wouldn’t have known.

  15. They chatted for awhile and then “Gamer Gurl” said she was actually 13.

    And at that point, a non-pedophile adult doesn’t set up plans to fuck her.

    Because when she tells you she’s 13 and you try to fuck her, it means you’re knowingly committing a crime.

    1. Except he obviously didn’t believe she was 13, and, reasonably, thought it was a typo. Fuck off.

      1. So he claims, after he got caught.

        If a girl tells you she’s 13 and you still try to sleep with her because you figure it was just a mistake and she must be older, guess how that’ll go for you in court, pedo.

        1. Depends on what her ID says. If it says she’s 13, you have a problem. If it says she’s 20, objectively you should not be being accused of trying to have sex with a minor.

          1. Let’s continue on to the point that going to the door and ringing the doorbell isn’t “trying to have sex” with someone.

    2. Then why did he not ask for the 13 YO when an adult came to the door? And why did they send an adult to the door if they wanted someone who was after 13 YOs?

      1. For the same reason they pretend they were at the wrong address when the host of “To Catch A Predator” shows up in the room instead of the teenage girl…because most pedophiles aren’t stupid enough to arrange a meeting with a minor when an adult is home, and if they encounter an adult they aren’t about to tell them they’re trying to have sex with a minor.

        Do you not understand that pedophiles know their actions are illegal and are attempting to evade detection?

        1. You claim to know a lot about what pedophiles do and think. Point to the doll where the bad man touched you.

    3. “Because when she tells you she’s 13 and you try to fuck her, it means you’re knowingly committing a crime.”

      No it fucking does not. Telling you she’s 13 doesn’t make her 13.

      When the cops run alcohol stings, they get people who are actually too young to buy alcohol to go into the store and try to buy alcohol, presenting their real ID, then they bust the idiots who sold alcohol to underage kids. They can’t make prosecutions stick if they use people who are over 21 and present identification that shows they’re over 21 when they’re trying to buy alcohol.

      “The person I sold alcohol to is over 21” is a valid defense to a charge of selling alcohol to a minor.

  16. I feel horrible for this kid that he was railroaded like this. But, as a word of advice to others, if a girl tells you she is 13, say good-bye. Either she is, or you are being set-up (like Nancy Pelosi). Neither situation ends well.

  17. Google effectively work and google pays me consistently and consistently only $5K to $8K for accomplishing on the web telecommute. I am a universty understudy and I work n my low maintenance only 2 to 3 hours every day effectively from home. Presently every one can procure additional money for doing on the web home framework and make a decent life by simply open this site and adhere to guidelines on this page… …Heres what I do……Check my site.

    1. Come back when Google teaches you to write in proper grammatical English.

  18. Apparently sending people away for the longest possible time, not actually protecting the public, is the goal.

    ‘Years in prison’ comes with a number.

    ‘Protecting the public’ doesn’t.

    You get more of what you measure.

  19. How are plea bargains even constitutional? The best witness for the prosecution is a defendant that says “guilty”. The prosecuter compel you to be a witness against yourself by coercing a plea deal.
    ” If you’re found guilty at trial, you could face twenty years in a rape cage, but if you take a plea, well only ask for five years of probation and hefty fines. Can you even afford a trial”
    It seems that the innocent would feel they can’t risk not taking a deal, and would not likely have the resources to even try against a D.A. with cast tax dollars to spend. Meanwhile, the guilty get off with a much lighter sentence then they might deserve.

    1. say the word “lawyer” when they start to interrogate you. One will magically appear, and that lawyer’s job is to assess the case against you and advise you whether you’re going to lose if it goes to trial. Use that information when you decide whether or not to take the plea deal.

  20. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  21. Start Business Online with USA Countries. Please Click this link…………..READ MORE

  22. Maybe the perps should claim to be Antifa. They’re a protected class in Washington State.

    1. Vancouver is where all the rightwingers who like to complain about Portland go to live.

      1. and why wouldn’t they? no income tax.

        1. AND they do their shopping in Oregon, so they don’t pay sales tax, either. AND a lot of them were registering their motor vehicles in Oregon, to save on that. WSP used to run an operation that looked at bridge traffic and caught people with cars registered in Oregon that lived in Washington. Wonder why they switched to looking for people who want to have sex with female police officers who like to pretend to be younger than they are?

          1. Anyways, I’m just noting why they aren’t claiming to be antifa. That wouldn’t go over well in Vancouver. Well, not the one in Washington, anyway.

  23. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website……………..READ MORE
    .

  24. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website……ReadMore.

  25. I would be OK with this if the law enforcement would just pose as 13yo from the very start, but these aren’t guys trolling the internet for 13yo. I can just imagine your a lonely guy and you think you are chatting with a 20yo chick and they send you a picture of a smoking hot 20yo. Then after your already horny and can’t believe your luck they spring “I’m actually 13.” These are probably guys who have no interest in having sex with a 13yo, but have been suckered in. It even wouldn’t be so bad if they would send a picture of an actual 13yo, but the way they are they doing this is totally unfair.

    1. You should try fucking on the reg.

      1. You should try it yourself, after the first time it gets pretty good.

  26. Police stings on people looking to have sex with kids who are 13 are valuable to society. They likely use photos of women who are of age because they cannot use pictures of actual children. Have you never had the will to read some of the chat logs? Before child predators could be prosecuted for online communication with children PervertedJustice conducted these stings online and all they could do was doxx the predators and publish the logs.

    There’s no defense for people who agree to have sex with young teens. Please do actual research and come back with a proper article on this topic.

    1. >There’s no defense

      How about a defense of “she actually wasn’t 13, she was on a site supposedly restricted to those 18 and over, and she sent a picture of herself and the person in that picture was obviously older than I am”?

      Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. By using a picture of someone who was well over 18, let alone 13, they put a reasonable doubt in *my* mind that the guy thought he was meeting a 13 year old. I guess it doesn’t put a reasonable doubt in yours.

    2. Au contraire!

      Per President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography the largest producer of child porn at the time was… the United States government, producing materials for sting operations.

      Have to imagine some of those materials are still floating around in the aether.

    3. Police stings on people looking to have sex with kids who are 13 are valuable to society

      Valuable in what way? Let parents shirk their responsibility to watch out for their offspring? If your 13 year old daughter arranges meetings for sex with 20-something men over the Internet, I think you as a parent should be held responsible as well, in addition to whatever happens to the man.

      There’s no defense for people who agree to have sex with young teens.

      Personally, I think there is a much better case to be made for the statement “There’s no defense for people who agree to have sex outside of marriage.”

      It’s odd that sex with post-pubertal women is so important to you, but neither the appalling lack of parental responsibility, nor the destructive effects of adult hookup culture seem to even register with you.

    4. “Police stings on people looking to have sex with kids who are 13 are valuable to society.”

      Perhaps. But this one caught someone who was looking to have sex with an adult woman.

      “They likely use photos of women who are of age because they cannot use pictures of actual children.”
      Nonsense. When they want to bust stores for selling alcohol to minors they use actual minors to make the buys. Using their actual ID if and when they get carded.
      If they can do that to charge people for selling alcohol to minors, they can do that to charge people for soliciting sex from minors.

      “There’s no defense for people who agree to have sex with young teens.”

      Most of the people who have sex with young teens ARE young teens.

    5. “There’s no defense for people who agree to have sex with young teens.”

      Which nobody in this story did, because there are no young teens in this narrative. Not even one.

    6. The sort of police sting in this case is a thought crime. The victim of the sting is targeted because of the knowledge that he is susceptible to entreaties to have sex with underage children. But susceptibility is not a crime. Also all persons who have sex, or try to have sex, with underage adults know the victim before the sex act takes place. It would be interesting to see how many of the men entrapped in these stings have ever had sex with underage women (since the male was 18, of course — it is not illegal for a minor to have sex with another minor). I would be willing to bet that very few of these men have done so. Another serious problem with these stings is that it encourages cops to lie and cheat. It is probably fun for cops to pretend to be someone else and try to catch a fish. But encouraging cops to lie, cheat, and role play in one scenario encourages them to lie and cheat in other ways. As I noted in my own post, I won an entrapment case on similar facts, and would be happy to share my memoranda with anyone. Indeed, if someone is really interested in how to win an entrapment case, they could purchase a copy of this case. State v. Lipppert, 08-CR-17-502 (Minn. 1917)

  27. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.NFg Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………….VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL

  28. My takeaway on this is Hambrick either had no lawyer or had a shitty lawyer.

  29. So, let’s review the bidding. They meet on a website that is adults only. She knows cultural references not normally understood by minors. Her photo looks adult (which it should, being of an adult woman) She says ONCE that she is 13, and apparently doesn’t respond one way or another when he questions that.

    I’m sorry, but the predators here are the cops.

    Yes, pedophiles (strictly speaking Hebephiles, in this case) exist. I’m far from persuaded that this kind of sting operation catches any real ones.

    This is about some prosecutor who wants to run for higher office.

    1. ” pedophiles (strictly speaking Hebephiles, in this case) exist. I’m far from persuaded that this kind of sting operation catches any real ones.”

      This sting operation unambiguously catches stupid people. They might get a stupid real pedophile or Hebephile if the operation runs long enough.

  30. a big part of the problem is legally insisting that people who are sexually mature are nevertheless incapable of making decisions regarding their own sexuality.

    That, and insisting on labeling people who would like to have sex with a person past (but not much past) sexual maturity as a “pedophile”.

  31. Facts don’t matter, but obvious baiting should.

    A blatant blow to reason, that the implication was that so much as having the will to find out the truth can result in prison time.

    There is no suggestion that any sexual activity has resulted, only that third base in texting (I.e., “setting”) should be sufficient to establish felonious action if mark were to enter a person’s home by invitation.

    What kind of person would attempt to meet someone based entirely upon enabling environments of virtual reality control systems?

    1. “Setting” should read “sexting.”

  32. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website……COME HERE FOR EARNING FROM ONLINE JOB
    All copyrights Reserved ©

  33. Look, this whole argument is pointless since the State already conceded on appeal that his right to a jury was violated and that he should get a new trial. See https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/530252-Respondent's%20Brief.pdf

  34. If Hambrick had sent a 13 year old boy to the door would the cops arrest themselves for trying to have sex with him?

  35. So law enforcement is encouraged to lie, deceive and fraudulently arrest members of society then arrest them by virtue signaling?

    Let start at the heart of the problem – a law enforcement lying, deceiving and fraudulently doing their job. This shouldn’t be “encouraged” it should be down-right basis of termination.

    Perfect example of; do as I say not as I do.

  36. i start my online bussiness with USA contries..READ MORE

  37. This is why this scheme works and the details you never read or hear about. The scheme is similar to a Ponzi scheme. How so? Law enforcement is keenly aware of men in vulnerable states such as going through breakup or divorce, guys that are just plain lonesome. That is where the treachery comes in. The 19 and over sites are hovering spots for those working to fatten the ‘cash cow’ on the pretense of ‘if it saves one child’ which is for the most part a lie. Then there are the private prison investors, some high profile, who support private prisons and the agreement to keep the beds 90 to 95% full. What does that say about our nation….it says we are known as ‘the incarceration nation’ with 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s incarcerated human beings. This is how the stings work. As you already know the conversation starts out with chit-chat (grooming) and that can take place over a matter of hours, weeks or months. I heard a task force female brag about it being 12 months before her predator stepped over the line. She didn’t call him that but he is their prey. During the grooming they ask him if he has any beer, if he has any drugs and don’t forget the condums. Now he has officially been it works and trust is non-existent. He is ready for the sting and forget driving by and deciding it could be a sting cause they will run you down and arrest you. Even if you drive in and drive out of the parking lot you are toast. What do they find in the vehicle…you guessed it liquor, drugs and condoms. Hum! Now he is ready for the B Team. The prosecutors who have been instructed to charge for as much as they can to the fullest extent of the law. In comes the evidence. Ironically some of the groomers conversation is missing. How did that happen. Then the prosecutor offers a plea deal and the terriroizing begins. Here is the offer 5 years or go to trial and risk 25 years. Even Brian Banks took that deal and we know how that turned out with the help of the Innocense Project folks. Now here is the kick-in-the-gut if you go to trial you will experience the ‘trial tax’ and that is the full monte sentence for tying up the judge and court. The person goes to prison and here is the grand finale the cost to incarcerate for one year runs, based on region, from 25K to 46K per person. That creates jobs for prison staff, prison vendors, therapists, doctors, etc. and lastly the investors who now have funds to travel, open new business ventures and what ever they please. Lives are ruined, families are torn apart, kids passed over for higher education opportunities, homes are burned, vehicles damaged, registrants live in constant fear and many experience health issues from the stress. So, there you have it the grandest Ponsi scheme of all courtesy of your government. Vicki Henry – Women Against Registry

  38. Last year I won an acquittal on a similar case in New Ulm Minnesota on an entrapment defense. As a result of this, a number of these “fake minor girls” cases were plea bargained down to simple attempted prostitution, a simple Misdemeanor in Minnesota. If any one would like it, I would be happy to attach a copy my argument in favor of submitting the entrapment defense to a jury, and a copy of the judge’s order granting my motion.

Please to post comments