You are proceeding to a page containing mature content. Is this OK?

check Yes, show me everything
close No, hide anything sensitive

Lolicon Grooms Undercover Cops

kuma-leash

A lolicon has been sentenced to 17 years for attempting to seduce young girls online; however, he never succeeded in chatting to a real girl at all, instead chatting to a succession of undercover police officers.

The man, a resident of Indiana, hankered after young girls and so tried to arrange real life sexual encounters in likely sounding chat-rooms.

His first effort, in 2006, succeeded in striking up an incriminating conversation with “13-year-old girl” Amanda_13, actually an undercover police officer attempting to entrap any lolicon hapless enough to stumble into such a chatroom.

Soon he persuaded her to meet with him for sex, but when he showed up for the rendezvous he was instead greeted by a police snare.

Secret Service officers soon searched his computer, discovering chat logs of him talking to supposed minors, aged 13 and 15.

After convicting him, the secret service finally realised that “daisy13_Indiana” was in fact one of its own agents, prompting the lolicon’s defence to appeal on the grounds of entrapment.

The judges reviewing the appeal then recognised the name of the other girl he had been chatting with, “blonddt,” as being yet another undercover officer from an earlier investigation.

“To our surprise, the government was unaware until this panel told it at oral argument that the other screen name, blonddt, was also an officer from the Indiana operation.”

The courts upheld the conviction anyway, holding that the chat logs amply demonstrated he was hunting for loli sex.

His sentence of 17.5 years, along with a lifetime of state supervision, has been upheld.

He apparently never chatted with a real underage girl at all, perhaps demonstrating that such chat-rooms are now the exclusive haunts of lolicon and police alone.

Via Wired.

Leave a Comment

166 Comments

  • 17 years? Murderers and rapists get less than that.

    God I hate the people in this country. Nothing but idiots with dogma.

    Young adults don’t need protecting. They aren’t stupid, just ignorant. We treat them stupid, and put them in a proverbial playpen so they don’t hurt themselves, instead of helping them grow.

    That’s the job of a parent. To give them knowledge. You can’t stop biological urges, so you better instill them with the facts.

    Or would that make too much sense?

  • You guys suck. There is nothing unnatural about wanting to have sex with someone that has gone through puberty.

    It is a parents responsibility to teach their children about predators and to just say no. It’s called street smarts and common sense.

    Why not just give children over the government at birth, and cut out the middleman. I’m sure they’ll look after them as fine soldiers.

    If every parent was responsible like they should be, there wouldn’t be any young adult being manipulated into being taken advantage of.

    I like how it’s not a crime to take advantage of a woman that is 18 with a one night stand, but anything else is wrong. What? She’s 18 so she’s magically intelligent and not naive? Fantastic.

    No one was raped. No girl was seduced. No crime took place. It’s that simple.

    I swear we reward people for being stupid.

    What else can we make the government do for us so we can be lazy and further remove our rights of freedom, choice, and free will.

    • I must have missed how sex was harmful. If a parent tells their kids about predators, protection, and the joys and consequences of sex, they will understand. They won’t take advances from strangers. They will use condoms if they decide to be sexually active.

      OH WAIT THIS IS THE SAME COUNTRY THAT FUNDS ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS AND REFUSES TO TELL YOUNG PEOPLE ABOUT SAFE SEX.

      IT IS ALSO THE SAME COUNTRY THAT ARRESTS YOUNG INNOCENT ADULTS FOR TAKING CONSENSUAL PHOTOS AND SENDING THEM TO THEIR BF/GF AND BEING PLACED ON THE SAME LEVEL AS RAPISTS AND REAL CHILD MOLESTERS.

      AND IT IS ALSO THE COUNTRY THAT DESTROYS LIVES BY MAKING INNOCENT PEOPLE SEX OFFENDERS BECAUSE THEY HAD SEX 1 SECOND BEFORE THEY WERE 18, THE MAGIC AGE WHEN ALL YOUNG ADULTS BECOME SUPER INTELLIGENT AND MAKE NO MISTAKES WHAT-SO-EVER.

  • may be the intention of the guy was to go to teach the girl what she did is dangerous. May be he knew an amanda and was curious to see if it was her etc. That stupid justice, in which not even a girl was part of it, is ridiculous. Attempt to do a crime… they can not probe it, and what you tell in a chat to a 13 year old girl is just what you tell in a chat to a 13 year old girl.

    • Fail at reading and comprehension? This guy is a repeated offender. I don’t think they would build a case against him on his first offend. Might get a citation, but definitely wouldn’t have ended up in jail and get butthurt.

  • technically, he isn’t doing anything wrong yet. Crime? there no crime done yet. Shall we caught people and punish for crime he not done yet like in ‘minority report’? He isn’t talking to a real underage girl too. (and why would underage girl on chat anyway? what’s the parent doing?)

    anyway, entrapment is also wrong. If he fight back legally, he would have win the case.

  • The court is just lazy to review the case another time.Technically, he didn’t do anything yet….unless thinking about becoming pedobear is illegal.Is there a law to jail people who you know are going to be criminals anyway?

  • The government has no right to be involved in anyone’s private affairs. It is a parents’ job to tell their children about sexual responsibility, including predators. But they’re lazy assholes that want the government to “protect their children.”

    This is entrapment, and he did not commit any crime, and he’s going to rot in prison for 17 years on our dime, just because he had the natural urge to mate with the most fertile of females.

    As far as I am concerned, a person that has hit puberty is no longer a child, but a young adult. They are ready and programmed for sexual reproduction. It is their right to be sexual. It’s bullshit that the government gets into two consenting people’s business when they harm no one.

      • She wouldn’t, because I would talk to her about the responsibilities, consequences, and advantages of sex, as well as protection and predators.

        When a person starts to grow up, you can’t be there for them all the time. You can’t just say, “Don’t do this, because I say so.” So arm them with knowledge.

        The government didn’t protect me from the teenagers smoking cigarettes in high school. You’d get a fine at most, certainly not 17 years.

        My parents told me facts about cigs, and those values stuck with me so I knew how to make choices for myself. I knew I didn’t want to be addicted to them or to be a part of something that would harm me.

        If a person can’t make choices for themselves with quality knowledge, they do not have free will. They are walking dogma.

      • I would certainly allow my 13 years old daughter to have sex with 13-16 years old boy (assuming he is adequate enough for this) if she wants it herself, and I see no fathership fail in this. When I was 14 I’d give anything to have a fuck. And hell, I was thinking of girls since 8, and I experinced my first orgasm when I was just 4 (masturbated accidentaly), so I understand them perfectly.

  • fucking cops have nothing better to do than trolling people by acting like a slutty underaged girl and standing around on roads catching speeders WOULD YOU CUNTS JUST FUCK OFF useless pieces of shit will only come to a crime scene about half an hour after the criminals already leave to not expose themselves to danger FUCKING GUTLESS WANKERS have to pick on the harmless pedos

    • Actually, 13 year old girls are capable of sexual reproduction. He wasn’t a pedophile. That would be lusting after children incapable of sexual reproduction.
      But I agree with your rant.

  • Its safe to assume that america assume everyone is guilty and deserves long long 20+ years sentence for any crime. Therefore you got to commit crimes with lesser charge like rape, killing, stealing, and stuff like that. 🙂

  • I think he had a fetish for government agents, which is perfectly legal imho.

    Oh by the way, this is why there are no girls in the Internet, as unfair as this rule of thumb is it exists for a reason.

    • Enter the humor of this particular perpetrator being prosecuted for only ever talking to undercover cops, and never once propositioning (as far as the evidence is concerned) a real minor, and there you have a story.

        • “There’s no evidence in the record that he ever succeeded in talking with a real underage girl.”

          Uh, the person he propositioned was an adult cop, not a minor. Care to read the article again and take another shot at this whole comprehension business?

        • ^
          Let’s brainstorm about some chances here. The cops wanted to coerce this guy into butt-raping your dad. But this guy won’t play ball because you dad happens to have very bad hemorrhoid and his butt hole is very hairy. So the cops got pissed and they framed him with this “bullshit” pedophile charge.

          It’s called Occam’s razor, you retard.

        • And how can you be so sure that it actually went that way? Do you believe everything you’re told? I feel sorry for you, being gullible makes life easier since you don’t over-think things, but I rather not ignore the chances that it’s pure bullshit.

  • I always found these things funny. He didn’t actually commit a crime. There is no crime in meeting little girls from the internets. The crime is if he raped them after meeting them. That’s like how cops pretend to be prostitutes then the guy pays them and get arrested when he may have paid for sex…but never committed the crime. Fail system fails.

      • Except the police doesn’t give you a gun, paint a target on their body and tell you to do what you want with the gun.

        Basically, the police are leading him on to commit a crime which I believe is illegal.

        • First anon, if you don’t think you can argue with someone willing to defend his position, then I suggest you get some more practice.

          When it comes to violent and nonconsensual crimes, I am the last person who would try to justify such crimes. Violence and coercion sickens me. But when it comes to consensual “crimes”, where the only crime is a “crime” against moral values (such as “kids aren’t allowed to have sex”), then of course I’m gonna defend my views on that.

          And then there is this issue of “non-crimes”. This case may not meet the legal definition of entrapment, but it’s still a trap, and the law doesn’t exist to capture would-be criminals in a bait-and-switch tactic. This is how I see the case:

          Person A lies and deceives Person B. Person B suggests that Person A join him in a consensual activity. Person A agrees. The two meet, and Person B discovers that Person A is not who she said she was. Person B gets 17 years in the slammer because the consensual activity he *would have* committed had Person A been who she said she was *would have* been illegal (on account of it being offensive to public morals). The only crime I actually see being committed here is lies and deception – the cop should be the one to be punished.

          Now, if the person involved in this case was indeed a sexual predator, interested in raping defenseless children, then he deserves what he gets. I *still* don’t think the method of trapping him is acceptable, though. You might think that sacrificing some of your liberties for the sake of making the internet a safer place for children is a worthwhile cause, but I disagree. I think we should look for solutions that improve safety *without* having to sacrifice liberty.

          For example, instead of deceiving people in the hopes of snagging a few predators before they have a chance to attack (at the risk of snaring some harmless and nonviolent innocents in the process), how about we focus on *educating* minors about the potential dangers of meeting people online? Shoot a few wolves, and the sheep may make it through the season. Teach the sheep to avoid the wolves’ attacks, and the sheep are set for life.

        • Indeed, solace’s argument made me cringe.

          Anyway, thanto_, don’t believe so surely that they never commit entrapment. The police are good at that, and do it as they please without facing consequences, because it’s often as a group.

          They could have been the ones who went and started hitting on this guy for sex, telling him he’d get $20K, and a jet plane for the heck of it. Sure, why not? The guy is a fucking IDIOT if he fell for it, but besides that, the point is that the police simply tell the media a fake story and continue enjoying their pay.

        • If an undercover cop agrees to meet an internet “predator” for what he/she clearly understands is intended to be a sexual rendezvous, then I think that cop, under the pretense of pretending to be a minor, should be just as responsible for attempting to commit the crime of “indecent acts with a minor” or whatever it is. It works both ways.

        • Not so. That would be entrapment, which is illegal. What actually happens is that they pose as 13 year old children (boys and girls) and basically wait to be propositioned. If the police officer propositioned the person, that would be entrapment (same with drug sales and prostitution), which, again, is illegal. Again, they wait to be propositioned and then sort of go along with it, but they let the other person do all the talking, really.

          Haven’t you ever watched, “to catch a predator”? That’s basically how it goes down – they pose as a young person, wait to be propositioned, and then just let the other guy say all sorts of disgusting things.

          There is no leading to commit a crime. It’s completely unnecessary anyway.

          I don’t understand how so many people come to think that the police are pressuring people into having cybersex with pretend lolis. Where do you get that idea? Do you not realize how absurd that is on its face?

      • Yes. If you shoot and miss, you’ve killed / injured no one. That said, in many countries you’ve broken a firearms law for that but that’s different. What’s next pantywaist…..you want police to arrest people who are mean to you? Grow up. More police supervision == police state….go read 1984 ffs.

        • Police should arrest people whose have the intention to do harm to others. Nothing more. Or you would rather have a bunch of lunatics roaming free in the city because they “haven’t done anything” yet? Clearly you have a very twisted logic, or worse yet, you are probably one of those anarchist lunatics who is going to blow up something.

  • England is stupid. US is stupid. Any place where police wastes their time on something like this is stupid. Most likely there are thousands of 13 year old girls having real sex anyway, they just aren’t that stupid to tell the police about it. Besides, anything above 12 is not even a loli anymore, it’s a human that is capable of having sex properly. If god wanted people to not have sex before 18, he’d have made the human species biologically ready at the age of 18, not after they are 11-13…
    That guy was harmless…he was looking for girls who wanted to do it, he wasn’t going for a rape.

    • Looks like someone doesn’t understand Age of Consent and why it exists, so let me explain.

      Children under the age of 18 are not legally considered to be mentally, emotionally, or psychologically mature enough to engage in adult acts, like sex, or entering into contracts. The law says they’re too young to fully understand what’s going on or its consequences. It’s the same reason we have juvenile hall.

      It’s all well and good to say, try them individually, but how do you do that in a court of law?

      Also, just because someone is capable of having sex doesn’t mean they can give legal consent or have any idea what’s going on. Remember that pubescent and post-pubescent humans are capable of autoarousal even when not fully conscious. That is, someone who is sleeping/unconscious or mentally retarded is still capable of getting fully aroused with all things physiological that go along with that. It does not mean that they consent to sex, and in fact, they absolutely cannot.

      By the way, if God intended us not to be eaten by bears, he wouldn’t have invented them. So, maybe you should go out in the woods and find one – do as God intended!

      • Or, just go to a country where you can have sex with minors as long as you tip the police if you get caught.

        Hint: Google them if you don’t know where that exists. You could even make that happen in your own country with enough money.

  • It would be even more epic, if at the randezvous point a gay police officers showed up and raped him, THEN took him into custody. Everyone would believe that the victim lies to try and save himself.

  • why do they keep trying? must be that obsessed then must go to jail. crazy how some highly respected people get caught.
    there was this one guy who would trick girls to send nude photos then blackmail them for sex.
    then i read a local story how a guy did the same thing except he posed as a girl, got a boy to send nude photos, then threatened blackmail him. “she” told him a guy was coming over to suck is dick.

    unrelated but funny:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx-4lVC7VKQ

  • For some reason in the back of my mind I believe if he just went out, raped, then murdered the girl he’d probably somehow would have gotten off with a shorter sentence than he got for just attempting to meet with little girls. The police should do a punishment fitting of the crime. Rather than jail him for that long, jail him for 2 years and take away all rights to use internet for another 6 years.

  • Yet another case that proves what I have been telling people for years: this whole BS about pedosexuals is NOT about protecting children, but about enforcing the ‘morality’ of people on other people.

    It’s simply time to LEGALIZE pedosexuality, bring it out into the open, repeal the ‘child sexual abuse’ and statutory rape laws, and simply tell children that if they don’t want a sexual encounter with someone, tell them that you don’t.
    If they don’t listen…. yell, scream, rant and rave and get the attention of someone else, because THEN they are doing something wrong by trying to force you into a sexual encounter you don’t want.

    • You are retarded. Pedophiles prey on children because they are gullible, and not because of love. If you love someone, you wouldn’t mind waiting a few years for him/her to be more mentally mature. And those chat room predators clearly target their preys because of their age, not because their personalities or any other valuable qualities as a human being. They objectify their victims, and worse yet, as sexual objects like a blow-up doll. So don’t try to defend them.

      • And you are misinformed. If women only existed for a few years and then automatically transformed into men by some unavoidable natural process, would you tell everyone who is attracted to women that if they really loved the woman, they’d have no problem waiting for them to transform into a man before expressing their love for them?

        • @solace
          >>. “Waiting until they grow up” is equivalent
          >> to “hitting on a guy instead of a girl”.

          It’s even easier to explain. It’s like telling anyone they ain’t allowed to fuck a woman under the age of 30. Or 80, or whatever age one personally regards as “too old”. Pedophiles think 18 is too old. Simple as that.

          Also, sexual predators ain’t necessarily pedophiles.

        • Anon, the point of my hypothetical (yes it was a hypothetical) was to try to give you a more familiar insight into the mind of somebody who is attracted to an age, by reframing the situation in terms of gender alone. I’m sorry that you seem to have missed that.

          The point is, if a person is preferentially attracted to a certain age, then asking them to withhold their advances on the “target” (unfortunate term) of their affections until after that age has passed is like me telling a heterosexual male that he’s not allowed to hit on women. “Waiting until they grow up” is equivalent to “hitting on a guy instead of a girl”. That’s all I was trying to say. It’s far from a perfect analogy, but I was trying to keep things simple.

          Regarding your other points, they do not relate in any relevant way to pedophiles, as you claim. You are talking about sexual predators, who are often opportunistic, who look for victims rather than partners (who they then objectify and abuse), and who are motivated by negative feelings such as anger and spite, instead of positive feelings like love. This has nothing to do with pedophiles.

        • ^
          Please cite an instance where a pedophile devoted himself to one victim only. Every case I have read about is either they got caught red-handed the first time or they leave behind a string of victims. There is no love involved, just lust.

        • The fact they’re gullible, their reactions, emotions and faces; you cannot find any of that in most women nowadays.

          That’s also what pedophiles love, which is completely understandable, and that is why they rape such lolis~

    • That guy is truly a noob, he should already be aware that usually most little girls in IRC (unless they’re kids curious for pedosex) would try to play jailbait and say they’re 20+yo women.

  • This is hilariously tragic, but all too perfect an example to be made of. Since when did attempting to commit a “crime” warrant an equal penalty to committing that crime, anyway? Down with entrapment.

    • so the scum can be out there till an “actuall” minor gets hurt….. we’re not playing minority report here… and i’m glad in this instance that he’s put away.. wish they’d do it to the rest of them as well..

    • Since always. Law (English as in the commonwealth states) have always set attempted crime the same penalty maximum as the crime itself. Here is Australia the sentence to attempt or even conspiracy is the same as committing the crime itself. Sux i noe, but what can we do about it? ;S

    • You can go to jail for ‘attempt murder’.

      The police is synonym to ‘crime PREVENTION’, which is VERY easily abused when there isn’t enough evidence but if they’re butthurt enough to throw a fit and fuck up the rest of your life.

      But it seems this time it wasn’t the case, and lolicon lost.

      • The difference with “attempted murder” is that policemen aren’t purposefully putting you in a situation where you are going to kill someone.

        Putting that aside, I think I know what the next step in lolicrime prevention is. Precogs will predictively find adults who are about to engage in online conversations with law enforcement agents masquerading as little girls.

        • If the person really did believe the scarecrow was a real person, then yeah, I think they should go to jail.

          I don’t consider it hypocritical at all; the person wasn’t just ‘intending to shoot someone’ they really thought they did shoot someone.

          Of course, it’d be difficult to convict someone of attempted murder for shooting a scarecrow because most people would dismiss it as a ‘lucky break’ without a second thought.

        • I just can’t imagine charging a person for murder for firing at a scarecrow on account of the fact that the person *thought* the scarecrow was a real person. In that situation, I’d be inclined to say, “lucky break, kid”.

        • Imagine you have a dog (or some animal) that SOMEHOW manages to dress up as a man with astounding acurracy. You then try to kill said man over a number of possible reasons. You then find out afterwards that it was not a man you killed but rather a dog. Logic says you should be charged with murder? Logic also says you can NOT be charged with animal cruelty?

      • I just really wonder why you can go to a real jail for propositioning a pretend minor. I mean, I understand that it makes a good tool for law enforcement to find those people, but I really don’t get why it can be considered a crime. It’s illegal to proposition a minor, a police officer pretending to be a minor is not an actual minor. Therefore why is propositioning the fake minor illegal?

  • Anon Onanist says:

    Intent to commit any crime is just as punishable (and rightfully so) as the deed itself. No one should be complaining that the punishment is unfair just because they were stupid enough to not only make an attempt and fail (& quite miserably at that), but that they got caught doing it.
    If you are serious enough about your convictions to cross that line in the first place, you should at least be prepared to deal with the consequences if (when) you fail.

    tl;dr He got what he had coming & maybe if he’s raped enough in prison (and he will definitely be raped) he’ll learn from his mistake.

    ~

      • -1

        Convicts don’t go around and rape everybody in prison. If you are a criminal with good intentions like Robin hood, they will give you respect. Because sexual predators are such scums even among criminals, they got their butts raped.

        • The problem here is that not all sex offenders are sexual predators. In other words, they’re not all *violent* sex offenders. Many of them are convicted for engaging in purely consensual activities. But few people, unfortunately, make that distinction. That’s where my concern is – people convicted of consensual crimes being mistreated because they are assumed to be violent offenders.