Dr. Phil to feature Police ICAC proactive stings.
The Dr. Phil Show airing on CBS will air an episode featuring Sex Stings next Monday, December 7, 2020.
The show will feature an FAC member whose son was targeted in one of these stings who has been fighting to expose them since. Also featured is Florida attorney Peter Aiken of Aiken, O’Halloran and Associates, who defends people caught up in these stings.
For local station and air times, please see: https://www.drphil.com/local-listings/
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I need a lot of help stamping out all of the misinformation that appears on this website and others. FAC does comment ocassionaly and it is deeply appreciated when they fact check posts. But like me, I’m sure the moderator doesn’t have the time to fact check every post. Things will go smoother if everyone reads the statutes and court decisions before commenting. If someone puts out inaccurate information, it is helpful for readers to correct it with accurate information.
We are all volunteering our time for this cause and when we have to respond to this misinformation, this takes time from us to help others.
It’s much more fun going after ghosts, boogeymen and other scary monsters. Creating more problems with ineffective solutions, Yup that outta keep people safe. When society is run by immoral and unethical people this is what we get.
Seems to me the victim never talked to an underage person in the whole process?
The only victims in these sex stings are the vulnerable individuals who were trapped in one of these (and their families). Most of the time, that is the case. They rarely catch real predators in these sex stings. Police and prosecutors purposely lie to the media, the public, courts, etc. They lie to everybody, pretending that they caught child predators and have protected children from “being raped”. It’s a huge lie. They know very well what they are doing. The public eats it up because it’s a fantasy that makes people feel good. There are so many lies involved in these stings. It’s despicable!
Aracely’s December 4th post gets to the reasoning behind why these stings are bad public policy and violate police theory and practice. The goal of police theory and practice is to prioritize crimes actually being committed in the community according to their prevalence and effects on the community. Once you prioritize crime in your jurisdiction, you assess your law enforcement capabilities and adjust them to the community needs. These stings are proven to be ineffective and a huge waste of police resources.
The police are setting up “unrealistic situations’ and “creating criminals”.
When police do these stings, they use their limited resources chasing ghosts rather than solving crimes. And in the meantime, the persons who are perpetuating violence in their communities walk free.
Thank you, Aracely
These stings go against good law enforcement theory and practice. Take the following for example.
Police go to a homeless shelter and offer to give a homeless guy a kilo of heroin to sell and make money. The homeless guy takes the police up on the offer and accepts the kilo of heroin and is arrested. The police take the same kilo of heroin to another 9 guys in the homeless which arrests 9 more people using the same kilo of heroin. The police parade these guys out in front of a press conference and announce, “We have taken 10 dangerous “drug dealers” off of the street and now our streets are much safer”. The reality of this situation is that no drug dealer would ever front a gram of drugs to a homeless guy, let alone a kilo. The police took advantage of 10 homeless guys and never took a single “drug dealer” or grain of drugs off of the street. These homeless guys would go through the court process and spend years in prison at great cost to tax payers for conduct that they would never have gotten the opportunity to engage in in the first place.
I worked in the military police investigations in the army and undercover narcotics work was one of the things I did in MPI. One of our MP’s, George Edwards, kept a gram of marijuana in a small manila envelope in his top desk drawer. I personally know that he made dozens of arrests by “selling” that 1 gram of marijuana to unsuspecting persons. More than 90% of all of George Edwards arrests were for 1 gram of marijuana. Sgt. Edwards didn’t take a single grain of marijuana off of the streets. He simply regurgitated a gram of marijuana he had previously seized and destroyed the lives of young soldiers and got civilians barred from reentry to the post which meant that they lost their on post employment and limited their employment options in the area. This is why we have entrapment laws.
Now take this example and place it in the context of these stings and you will understand.
You have a dirty stinky old man living in a mobile home park. He approaches a variety of 13 year old girls looking for “companionship”. All the girls view him as ugly and old and would never even kiss him let alone have any type of sexual relationship with him. This old man lives the rest of his life and dies without ever being arrested for coming on to these 13 year-old girls, and hence, is never on the sex offender registry.
Along comes the internet. This old man finds a boat load of 13 year-olds on the internet but none of these 13 year-olds want to look at him let alone kiss him. Along comes an undercover officer posing as a 13 year-old and the old man finally “finds” a 13 year-old willing to have sex with him and we all know the outcome.
What makes these stings wrong in police theory and practice is that the vast majority of these “sex offenders” would never have had the opportunity to have sex with a 13 year-old in the first place. You wind up with a bunch of people who wouldn’t have a chance with a real 13 year-old and would have lived the rest of their lives without being arrested except for the fact that they stumbled on to a police sting.
Detroit
Good and detailed and accurate information. Thank You. There needs to be more honest people like you to speak up.
Hello Detroit, these online sting operations are actually not going after pedophiles, they are going on websites such as match.com, plenty of fish, cupid, etc. Adult dating websites. They pose as an available woman, builds a 6 months relationship, hooks the guy, and then do a bait and switch right up until the moment of face to face meeting. When at the last minute the undercover cop says oh by the way I’m 14, we as humans are curious cats. We think no way.. there is no way that this 14 year old can have this much intelligence and maturity, so what do we do. We got to check it out for ourselves. She has to be lying. BOOM, HOOKED, BAIT AND SWITCH…. now you are facing 20 years in prison and lifetime on the registry….being a sexual assaulted survivor 3 times (14, 17, and 18 yrs old) I know what a true predator is. All these cops are doing is creating a camouflage for the true rapist and pedophile. They just need to show the public… hey see its working. Oh and let’s not forget Patty Wetterling who decided to amend the Megan Law and go after underage kids. Her view was to catch a predator while he’s young then we can avoid him hurting children when he is older. WTF. So, now we have a bigger problem. The youngest sex offender on the juvenile registry is 5 years old and on it for LIFE. So, you know what happens to this kid when he is 20, 30, 40, etc. It will look like he molested a 5 year old. Food for thought people. Oh and let’s not forget in Texas alone they are making billions of dollars. Yes billions of dollars for all the fees they tag on these guys. But they can’t get a job or housing due to the scarlet letter. This is what it looks like for our future men, boys, and children.
If a sex offender is so stupid to stay in online contact with a 13-year-old , propose a meeting and show up with condoms and lube then they deserve to be in jail. And of course sex offenders don’t want to talk about their past to the media. They committed a hideous crime by picking on a child – the “low hanging fruit” for adult horn dogs.
Understandably an adult should be jailed if they are attempting to meet someone of that age for sex.
But fair’s fair, Monkey Man. You yourself hide things from the media, don’t you? The is no reason that your own past— whatever it is you feel most ashamed of— should not also be in the media. Let the public be informed, so that people can make an informed decision about associating with you. If you’re thinking what you yourself have done is not so reprehensible, that’s fine, let people decide.
Who is this Monkey Man really.
The majority on the the sex offense registry never had contact with any 13 yr. old nor any minors. That’s the main problem here. That’s the biggest problem with it . It’s deceptive , misleading the public into thinking it’s something it’s not and obviously you are one of its victims.
Monkey Man, you must be talking about one person in particular.
Most individuals trapped in these stings are not sex offenders at all. They are individuals who were on adult sites looking for a casual encounter with other adults who were also seeking that, and police posed as someone who was looking for and offering that too. Then they changed their age to pretend to be minors who are offering casual sex to random adult strangers. It’s not a realistic situation. There are many reasons why people fall for this, including not believing it’s really a minor doing this, curiosity about why a minor would be doing this (if it’s even real), concern for a minor who is doing this, the pretend minor harassing the adult and not giving up until the adult tells them what they want to hear, etc. The list goes on.
It’s very disturbing that LE is more interested in creating criminals by creating unrealistic situations (saving no children at all) and lying to the public about it, instead of addressing the real problems and saving real children. It’s much easier and very pathetic for them to just pretend to be doing their job instead of really doing it. There needs to be accountability for that.
@MonkeyMan,
But the problem is they aren’t always meeting, or even setting up a meeting. In online stings run by twenty something military investigators they broke every ICAC rule in the book and arrested people for merely talking online to said “14 year old”. No meeting was initiated or needed for their arrest and conviction.
Things aren’t always the way the police portray it.