Not that I at all condone what Mr. Atichison may have been hoping to do.
But, in these cases, I really wonder just who the victim is supposed to be.
It's rare that someone is convicted of, or even charged with, murder when there is no dead body. There's an example for comparison.
Here, the victim is ... a nonexistent person?
Or the victim is a police officer of the age of majority? Then how is that officer the victim of solitications that were committed against a minor?
There has to be a better way of stopping these acts before they happen ... before they happen to real
One day, I hope, our courts will take a bigger stand to do two things: (1) uphold the letter of the law and not allow it to be warped in this way; and (2) compel the legislative and executive branches of our governments to come up with better, less questionable, more effective, less costly ways of stopping adults from abusing real children. Something I cannot stand is to see government diverting funds from real acts of necessity to grossly inefficient ways of dealing with something else.
Also, check out this Rolling Stone article
The video: HA! Many of his words are simply counting in German. :D "Sieben, sieben, ein, null, null, ein, zwei", &c.—"Seven, seven, one, zero, zero, one, two", &c. :D
What do you suggest as a way to catch people that intend to hurt children then? If he was looking online for this sort of ting, eventually he probably would have fond some awful parent, or child slaver who would be willing to sell him a couple hours with a baby for the right price.
I'm thrilled this cocksucker is going to jaile,a nd that everyone knows who he is now. I think that all chidl molestors should have to wear a permanent mark, so that they have limited opportunity to hurt a child again, should they ever be deemed as worthy of getting out of prison.
And as far as I'm concerned, they should stay in jail. You hurt a child in that way, that's it. Zero tolerance policy. Or if there is proof you intended to hurt a child. Same thing. Entrapment or not. I honestly don't care, so long as these sleazebags never have the opportunity to be within glancing distance of my child.
I just read all your replies, randomposting. Thanks for them.
I'll keep my reply brief, since much of it would just be repetition of what I've already said multiple times in other comments.
I see two common themes in your comments. One is that, where I suggest the questionability of X, you ask whether (maybe rhetorically; i.e., you're stating that) I prefer Y. I say I have too little information on which to judge what this guy has done, and you ask whether I'm saying that I think he did not do bad things.
It worries me when I see so many people making all kinds of assumptions about someone they've never met on the basis of what, for some, may be nothing but a single article by the A.P.
Perhaps a better thing for the police to go trolling for would be real parents of real children who really are offering up their kids for this kind of stuff. Remember that, unlike the many cases that involve posing as children who could become the victims of these predators, we here have police posing as a parent who would offer up a child for such things. I found it curious that I didn't see any comments (though I confess I haven't read all the comments) here about the phenomenon of real parents who do offer their real children in these ways.
You asked whether I question his guilt. Of course I do. One article by the A.P. that I can read in two minutes about what one group of persons says about someone I've never met doesn't give me a very firm basis at all to talk about what the person actually has done in life, let alone what's gone on in his head.
Let's say I'm a cop; let's say I suddenly step before some TV news microphones and say I have evidence that randomposting was planning to victimize some people: should everyone leap up to vilify you?
Anyway, I still think that, in certain ways, this culturally accepted genital mutilation is worse than typical rapes. In one, you have something abhorrent done to you, and, though your mind may be injured for a very long time, your body may go uninjured at all, or may heal soon with no permanent damage. But the removal of an entire organ: that automatically results in a lifelong physical change to one's body. Are you saying that you would be less scarred, physically and emotionally, if you simply were penetrated against your will than if someone cut out a piece of your genitals and threw it away?
As to what would have had to happen to me in order for me to want to bring "this man to justice": let's not get deeper into what's happened to us. Or, at least, I don't want to get into my own history.
You said "And I agree there's a lot that needs to happen to educate children on stranger safety and what not, but that doesn't help those poor children who are being pimped out or whatever, and don't have anywhere to turn." I'm sorry; I don't understand this. Teaching children about how to deal with being abused would not help them with the matter of where to turn to when something like this is done to them, or when they encounter someone who seems to be planning to do it to them? The point specifically is to give them people to turn to; it's to let them know about the bad things that could happen to them, the things they can do to evade these malicious efforts, and all the people who are ready to help them in an instant if they need it.
[Continued in next note.]
Eee! Long. Don't know where to start. I'll try and keep it brief for real this time. Promise. ;)
I was also very surprised that the phenomenon of parents offering up their children for this sort of thing wasn't addressed. I figured it would be, and for the most part I haven't been posing questions, except for those in direct response to comments others have made. I just addressed that largely in a comment you received probably jsut before reading this.. I think the punishment should be the harshest allowed by the law.. and more.
It's court affidavit's though, and to get in a court affidavit... the comments about being gentle with a five year old, and flying accross state lines to do this with her? I don't see how there's any question of guilt there, unless you're suggesting that the police are lying, but what would they gain by doing that? Especiallly with his high profile job. Usually things like this get pushed under the rug, so the fact that this one wasn't I think speaks volumes..
And genital mutilation is horrific, but it's a reality in that part of the world. It's terrible and it certainly must be stopped but these girls grow up in an area where that is the cultural norm. I think it's different then rape. Though one of those ha happened to me and not the other so I certainly can't comment on both parts with any kind of perspective. I have found historically that the cultural practices of one society is disgusting, vile, cruel and evil by anothers, and vice versa. I look forward to the day when this particular practice is ended, regardless of cultural feelings.
Not every child is sent to school. Not everyones parents educate them beyond the school system. There's a lot of children that wouldn't be reached in this way, and though it's wonderful to teach kids about the dangers of strangers, there is still much more that needs to be done.
[Continued from previous note.]
"How do you propose the law to find child molesters on the street?" Why not instead work in chat rooms to find parents who are offering their real children for this kind of thing? See: you can still work in chat rooms, still search for people with bad intentions, who may have evidence of already having done physical bad things to children—but, this time, you're finding the people who are doing bad things, or planning to do bad things, with real kids. All the hours these police officers spend in these chat rooms pretending to be parents offering up pretend children could instead be used for pretending to be molestors who are seeking out real abusive parents of real abused children. You still find people in chat rooms, and you still pretend to be a child abuser (as the police did in this sting, pretending to be the nonexistent parent who would abuse this nonexistent girl)—but, instead, you catch people who are putting real children at immediate risk.
This isn't to say that people who seek this kind of thing with people who turn out to be cops aren't seeking this kind of thing in reality. It's simply about allocating resources more effectively.
If your child is abused by, let's say, a couple down the street who've already been successfully offering up their own child to strangers online for years, and then you find out that the police could have caught that couple, wouldn't you be furious to know that, instead, they'd been going after people who were only planning on abusing kids who didn't even exist, when they could've been finding this couple who had done real abuse to their own child and now were abusing yours? I know I would. Going after people who prey on my real kids trumps going after people who prey on imaginary kids, any day, at least in my book.
So much for keeping this brief; sorry about that.
So you're okay with that kind of internet sting, even though it was only intent to sell?
Of course I agree that those people should be incarcareted to the full extent of the law and further. People who hurt childre like that, and especially those who hurt their OWN children like that.. God. Just beyond horrifying to me and everything I've said about how I feel those that hurt children should be punished goes tripley for them.
I think they are doing this all ready, but I pray that they'll continue it, and to a larger scale.
The more child molestors off the streets, and the web, the happier I am.
And no, I wouldn't be furious. I'd be glad that anyone who intended to hurt any child is off the street. I'd be pissed that those that had been hurting my child and their own wasn't caught sooner, but any child molester caught is a victory for me.
And no worries about being brief. Lord knows I hardly ever am. ;)
First priority: real harm to real victims.
Second priority: intended harm to real victims.
Dead last: intended harm to imaginary victims.
Offering your child up like that is already a crime, even if you don't find anyone to accept your offer. The law has decided that being offered by someone in that way makes you a victim of a crime. Being offered in that way is a crime. Therefore you're a real victim. (It's just as offering someone money for sex is a crime, even if the money doesn't end up being paid.)
If any government body is dealing with the third item when there's work still to be done on the first two priorities, I'm pretty dang irritated, to say the least. ... All I can do, really, is repeat: we protect all the real kids first, and then we can start protecting the ones that exist only in some persons' imaginations.
Shall we call it a night, though?
So you don't think that any child was ever helped by any of these internet stings? That no child would have been attacked by any of those arrested for these crimes?
And absolutely. I'm exhausted. :) Sweet dreams!
Words of reason.
As I've stated before, people get so wrapped up in emotions that they lose sense of judgment. That's especially true when it comes to often purely fictional "child sex" scenarios.
You don't think that he would have found a living, breathing child to do this? Even with his words about how he's "always gentle" ?
You have more faith then I do.
I don't think it has anything to do with faith. I think it's simple reality.
Haven't you ever been tempted into doing something you otherwise would not have done? Maybe friends drinking, smoking, doing drugs, egging a house, or any other kind of prank or something that they talked you into doing with them?
It's the same concept. These bullshit "stings" entice people to do something they otherwise never would. It's the same as kids being enticed into something they normally wouldn't do.
Not something like abusing a child.
Anyone that's willing to go so far as crossing state lines to abuse a five year old.. that's beyond fucked up. He should be behind bars for the rest of his life.
Again, as someone else stated, there was no real victim. The victim was a fictitious person.
There was a time when in order to have committed a crime, you had to have a victim. These days, we're prosecuting people based on fictitious, invented, made up characters.
Who was the victim here? No one! There was no crime committed.
And again, if he had not been enticed, and in my opinion a victim of entrapment, he never would have done this at all.
I'm just sick and god damned tired of people taking advantage of hot button issues to further their own agenda. People get so riled up over this kind of stuff that they lose all common sense and abililty to think rationally. Just look at the comments right here on your own journal. People become barbarians!
The comments on this journal entry and the way people act when it comes to events like this reminds me of two things...witch hunts in the 1600s and lynch mobs in the U.S. south in the 1950s and 1960s. It's no different! And if anyone believes it is, all they have to do is look at the comments made to this post! Replace "Let's string up that nigger" with "Cut the balls off this perverted bastard". It's the same thing!