"StanB" writes:
None of what you say justifies or changes the despicable intent of the trip
to Alley Bammy.

None of what you say changes the fact that acquittal because of
entrapment is not a technicality. The law recognizes entrapment
as a valid defense because it IS a valid defense.

(Parrthenon) wrote in message
...
ENTRAPMENT IS WORSE THAN INTENT
By Larry Parr

"Evidently, you think entrapment is worse behavior than a grown man
intending to fornicate with a fifteen year old child." -- Stan Booz

Yes! Entrapment is worse than intent.
It is worse because it is an attack on all of us.

Someone here has noted a distinction between thinking about fornicating with
a 15-year-old and intending to do so. But that law is based on the concept
of victimless crime and there is no reason, given the philosophy behind such
a law, that ideation cannot also be criminalized. Which is to say, just
thinking about screwing some Lolita is criminal IF such thoughts can be
statistically linked to an eventual action. If the statistical link is strong
enough, one can then make a case for a "compelling state interest," whereupon
we have thought crime.

Alex Sherzer committed no crime. That is not a technicality.
I agree he crossed a state line (not criminal) and intended to screw a
15-year-old (not criminal). I also agree he conducted himself abominably.
But abominable conduct is not necessarily criminal conduct.

Thomas Mo The law is not a light for you or any man to see by; the law is
not an instrument of any kind. The law is a causeway upon which
so long as he keeps to it a citizen may walk safely.
--Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons)

Concering the FBI agent bringing race into e-mail messages, his intent was
NOT to discuss race per se. His intent was to work the subject of race
around to sex, when a lengthy discussion about the sexual proclivities of
black and white would likely have been admitted as evidence.
We all know what goes on in our minds at one time or another. The FBI agent
took a fair gamble that his racial gambit would be accepted by Dr. Sherzer.

Perhaps the FBI agent was hoping that Alex Sherzer would respond simply to
humour the sweet "fifteen-year-old girl", if for no other reason.

And he probably was aware that the judge wouldn't admit it into evidence if
his target declined the gambit.

In such operations, how often would the FBI agent ever acknowledge that the
suspect actually had no intention of committing any crime until after the
FBI agent had planted that notion into the suspect's mind?

'All earthly innocence is but comparative. Yet still how wide asunder are the
extremes of guilt.'
--Ann Radcliffe (The Mysteries of Udolpho)

--Nick

"StanB" wrote in message
link.net...
"LeModernCaveman" wrote in
message ...
Nick wrote:
Would Stan Booz care to comment on the behaviour of the many American
soldiers who have fornicated with (or simply raped) girls of age fifteen
(or younger) during the United States's wars in Asia?

StanB wrote:
Sure. "Two wrongs don't make a right" --A. Cliché

Neither does one. Two wrongs do make a nice wedge to drive someone off
of a political fence by monitoring how they respond to them relatively.

Yes, yas, yes. Bwana Nick's question was of the
"Do you still beat your wife" genre.

I simply pointed out some historical facts that would contradict Stan Booz's
preferred extremely idealised views of the United States and its history.

Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice",
wherein I cite evidence to prove directly that Stan Booz has *lied* about me:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27416E75

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

--Nick

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...
What makes you think that Dr. Sherzer behaved poorly in this case?

Thomas Mo The law is not a light for you or any man to see by; the law is
not an instrument of any kind. The law is a causeway upon which
so long as he keeps to it a citizen may walk safely.
--Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons)

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

If Alex Sherzer had exercised more prudent judgment, then he presumably could
have avoided ever becoming a party to the FBI entrapment.

From what has been posted on this forum he seems to me to have acted like a
normal adult male.

I should have been careful enough not to discuss the possibilities of any
sexual relations even if the underaged young lady had introduced the subject.

He responded to a "personal" advertisement of some sort, including a
photograph (neither of which has been posted on this bbs) by a young(er)
woman. He and the advertiser developed an internet friendship, during which,
I infer, she began to ask him for advice concerning her life and he responded
to such requests.

When close friends have asked me for personal advice, I usually have attempted
to be as helpful as I could be, though sometimes there might have been a
potential conflict of interest toward my relationship(s) with someone else.

Her mother -- whose efficacy as a loving parent may have been reflected most
accurately in the fact that the young woman had incurred an unwanted pregnancy
and had been incarcerated -- "found" a printout of something (we don't know
what) Dr. Sherzer and/or the young woman had communicated via email.

I feel less qualified than you do to make a moral judgment about the mother.

The mother, who appears to me to have held her daughter in utter contempt,
involved an agent of the government, who then took over the young woman's
email. (We've heard nothing of the young woman's postion regarding this and
other infringements of her human rights. No one has arrested the government
agent or the mother, despite the Federal and State laws against restricting
the human rights of others.)

Fifteen-year-old persons have not been accorded the full legal rights of adults.

Dr. Sherzer was entrapped by the government agent.

That's what the jury concluded in reaching its verdict for acquittal.

(For all we know, there may have been NO hint at all of a sexual encounter
between Dr. Sherzer and the young woman before the advent of the government
agent.)

That might be true.

What, then, did Dr. Sherzer do to incur all this animosity? NOTHING. He was
32 years old and the young woman was almost 16 years old. I have a 74 year
old brother who has lived with a 40 year old woman for a decade. He was more
than twice her age when they started living together. So what? It is true
that Romeo was only 14 years old, but he ACTUALLY DID SEDUCE a 13-year-old
girl. (Dr. Sherzer was "seduced" by the government agent in the guise of the
young woman.) I doubt that any of those who have cursed and condemned and
laughed at Dr. Sherzer on this forum feel the same way about Romeo.

I was not among "those who have cursed and condemned and laughed at Dr. Sherzer
on this forum". I hoped that Alex Sherzer could receive a fair trial, and I
decided to withhold my judgment until after that trial: I respect the verdict.

By the way, Romeo and Juliet met a tragic fate.

As has been pointed out here (by me, among others), the majority population
of the world considers the menses a legitimate sign of womanhood. NO ONE on
this forum has denied this. (The young woman had been pregnant, so I guess
she may have had one or more periods.)

Evidently on account of better nutrition, the average age of the menarche has
been decreasing throughout many societies in the world, whereas the emotional
maturity of these "new young women" has not been proportionally increasing.
In short, young bodies tend to be ready for sexual activities before young
minds are prepared for all the potential consequences.

Dr. Sherzer, from what we have seen on this bbs, has acted as a perfectly
normal and civil adult male, in a very sick society.

I believe that Alex Sherzer could have acted more wisely and responsibly.
And I expect that he should do so in his future relations with young women.

'Those who never have been guilty of any indiscretion are generally people
who have very little active virtue.'
--Frances Moore Brooke (The History of Emily Montague)

--Nick

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...
Firstly, Larry Parr already has defined the Boozer's "technicality"
correctly; that "tecnicality" properly is called a jury.
Secondly, in the only place where I have read about "burning tires" being
used to execute humans, it was reserved for traitors to the people of South
Africa.

'Treason begins in the heart before it appears in overt acts.'
--Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

In my opinion, 'necklacing' was an inhumane punishment even for those South
Africans who were believed to have collaborated with the pro-apartheid regime.

Of course, the execution of suspected collaborators did not originate in the
South African liberation struggle against apartheid. For instance, an Israeli
academic, who had participated in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, informed me
that the Jewish Ghetto's leaders, though politically divided, had agreed that
it was essential for all suspected Jewish collaborators with the Nazis to be
eliminated before the uprising could take place. Some of the Jews who were
condemned to death as Nazi collaborators might have been the innocent victims
of denunciations motivated by political intrigue or personal revenge. Yet
the possible sacrifice of some innocent Jewish lives was regarded as only the
necessary initial cost of the Warsaw Ghetto's greater battle for survival.

But it is to be expected that the racist Boozer bacillus would misapply the
analogy.

With all due respect, you seem rather to have mischaracterised Stan Booz
and his evident ad hominem motives in writing his latest post toward me.

1) In fact, bacilli are not racists, but Stan Booz undoubtedly is a racist.
Therefore, Stan Booz, a racist, cannot be a bacillus.

2) I doubt that Stan Booz intended to write a serious historical analogy.
I doubt that Stan Booz would know enough about history, not to be confused
with his favourite jingoistic propaganda, to be able to do that accurately.

3) Instead, Stan Booz's post (with its citing of a "burning tire", implying a
South African historical context) was another of his continuing racist
ad hominem attacks toward me, whom he has insisted on inappropriately
calling "Bwanna Nick" (sic) many times.

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (25 May 2003), Stan Booz wrote:
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

In the RGCP thread, "In the Land of the Free, We Fight 'Terrorists'"
(23 September 2003), Stan Booz wrote to "NoMoreChess":
"...Better yet, have one of Bwanna Nick's boys do it.
Gosh knows he has been a burden to my kind for way too long."

You may notice Stan Booz's typical United Statesian racist connotations:
"...Better yet, have one of *Bwanna* Nick's *boys* do it.
Gosh knows he has been a *burden to my kind* for way too long."

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (30 April 2003), Tobi Usher wrote:
"It's ludicrous to call the Dutch more racist than the Americans.
I have lived both in the US and in the Netherlands and there is no comparison."

Every one of my thoughtful European friends who has lived in the United States
has concurred that the United States is a deeply racist society (which is not
to imply, of course, that Europe's free of racism). Whenever United Statesians
attempt to deny that any racism exists in the United States, I can only wonder
whether they are more hoping to deceive me or to deceive themselves.

Stan Booz's racism seems largely shared by many other United Statesians, who
might well believe in private what Stan Booz enjoys saying vulgarly in public.
Evidently, most United Statesians of my acquaintance can find nothing seriously
wrong with most racist rhetoric unless, of course, it seems directed at United
Statesians of European ancestry. Indeed, Stan Booz's racist rhetoric might be
admired by more than a few other United Statesians.

I also know that many, if not most, United Statesians may feel obliged to do
their utmost to deny, cover up, or excuse any racism in the United States.

Here's a link to the article, "The Legend of Strom's Remorse:
a Washington lie is laid to rest" by Timothy Noah (16 December 2002):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2075453/

Why would Tim Hanke and Stan Booz not receive the same deferential treatment
from most USCF "political types" that the late Strom Thurmond enjoyed in
Washington politics and the media until the end of his life?

Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice",
wherein I cite evidence to prove directly that Stan Booz has *lied* about me:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27416E75

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

--Nick

None of what you say changes the fact that acquittal because of
entrapment is not a technicality. The law recognizes entrapment
as a valid defense because it IS a valid defense.


None of what you say changes the fact that Sherzer is a pervert. So he got off.
That doesn't change the fact that he likes 15 year old kids.

..
None of what you say changes the fact that acquittal because of
entrapment is not a technicality. The law recognizes entrapment
as a valid defense because it IS a valid defense.


None of what you say changes the fact that Sherzer is a pervert. So he got
off. That doesn't change the fact that he likes 15 year old kids.


Girls. He likes 15 year old *girls*. Just what sort of pervert do you
think he is? :-)



Entrapment is a valid defense in that no child would have actually been
harmed if Sherzer had gone ahead with his plans (to have sex with...an FBI
agent).


But consider this: a man steals top secret government documents with the
intent to sell them to an enemy state for big money, but as he is on his way
overseas, he is robbed, and when the theif discovers "worthless papers" in the
briefcase, he discards it in a dumpster, and they are soon destroyed. Such a
man could be convicted anyway, no? Not for selling to the enemy, but for theft
and treason.


The problem is only with the question of enticement, of not going astry, but
being LED astray, of entrapment. Had the FBI simply monitored Sherzer closely,
and waited to see if he did anything illegal on his own, there would have been
no technicality for defense.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
Mogath3 wrote:
None of what you say changes the fact that Sherzer is a pervert. So he
got off. That doesn't change the fact that he likes 15 year old kids.

Girls. He likes 15 year old *girls*.
Just what sort of pervert do you think he is? :-)

For more evidence of NoMoreChess's 'state of mind' on this subject, here's
a link to NoMoreChess's post wherein he apparently makes a detailed 'joke'
about how to rape a woman:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:q4sfb.680584$uu5.111761@sccrnsc04...
NEWSFLASH - PARR SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMS VULCAN MIND GRIP, FILM AT ELEVEN
Larry Parr now determines the intent of a person he has never met, never
talked with, and probably only knows from a few newspaper accounts of a
trial happening multiple time zones away from his Malaysian home.

'The prejudice against lawyers stands upon the ground with the prejudice
against learning. The majority are not lawyers, or learned men.'
--Hugh Henry Brackenridge (Modern Chivalry)

Dear Mr. Bauer,

Unfortunately, such premature assumptions about other people's motives are
common both in the media and among the writers here.

Unless Parr is willing to categorically condemn thousands of people whose
only "vice" is choosing to work in the public sector, he must have some other
way for knowing that the person in question (the agent in the Sherzer trial)
would "work the subject of race around to sex, when a lengthy discussion
about the sexual proclivities of black and white would likely have been
admitted as evidence." Really? How do you know that?

Evidently, that's Larry Parr's hypothesis, which I doubt that he could prove.
But why you should extrapolate a hypothesis about a single FBI agent's motives
into a potential "categorical condemnation of thousands of people whose only
'vice' is choosing to work in the public sector"?

Keep in mind that Parr has also called this person, who was probably just
doing his job, "depraved." Really? How do you know that? This from the
man who defends Sam Sloan?

1) I doubt that Larry Parr could be certain that the FBI agent was "depraved".
2) I do *not* defend Sam Sloan, who evidently routinely makes false statements.
3) "I was just doing my job" was *not* accepted as a justification for the
actions of the Gestapo agents on criminal trial after the fall of Hitler.
4) How do you know that there "probably" was no misconduct by the FBI agent?

At the same time, he suggests that Dr. Sherzer, who admits behaving badly in
seeeking to "sex a 15-year old" may have really loved her and was going to
Mobile to profess his love and devotion. Really? How do you know that?

I doubt that Larry Parr could be certain of Alex Sherzer's real motives.

To reach such bizarre conclusions, one can only conclude that Parr has
mastered the Star-Trek Vulcan Mind Grip and has been able to gleen this
information from the brains of Dr. Sherzer, agent Stabler, and god knows
who else.

In fairness to Larry Parr, I don't regard all his conclusions about the Alex
Sherzer case as equally "bizarre". Some of his conclusions seem more plausible
than others to me.

Unlike the jury, I was not there when all the admissible evidence was presented.
The jury heard all that evidence and reached its verdict, and I respect it.

'A just medium prevents all conclusions.'
--Laurence Sterne (Tristram Shandy)

--Nick

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:q4sfb.680584$uu5.111761@sccrnsc04...
NEWSFLASH - PARR SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMS VULCAN MIND GRIP, FILM AT ELEVEN
Larry Parr now determines the intent of a person he has never met, never
talked with, and probably only knows from a few newspaper accounts of a
trial happening multiple time zones away from his Malaysian home.

'The prejudice against lawyers stands upon the ground with the prejudice
against learning. The majority are not lawyers, or learned men.'
--Hugh Henry Brackenridge (Modern Chivalry)

Dear Mr. Bauer,

Unfortunately, such premature assumptions about other people's motives are
common both in the media and among the writers here.

Unless Parr is willing to categorically condemn thousands of people whose
only "vice" is choosing to work in the public sector, he must have some other
way for knowing that the person in question (the agent in the Sherzer trial)
would "work the subject of race around to sex, when a lengthy discussion
about the sexual proclivities of black and white would likely have been
admitted as evidence." Really? How do you know that?

Evidently, that's Larry Parr's hypothesis, which I doubt that he could prove.
But why you should extrapolate a hypothesis about a single FBI agent's motives
into a potential "categorical condemnation of thousands of people whose only
'vice' is choosing to work in the public sector"?

Keep in mind that Parr has also called this person, who was probably just
doing his job, "depraved." Really? How do you know that? This from the
man who defends Sam Sloan?

1) I doubt that Larry Parr could be certain that the FBI agent was "depraved".
2) I do *not* defend Sam Sloan, who evidently routinely makes false statements.
3) "I was just doing my job" was *not* accepted as a justification for the
actions of the Gestapo agents on criminal trial after the fall of Hitler.
4) How do you know that there "probably" was no misconduct by the FBI agent?

At the same time, he suggests that Dr. Sherzer, who admits behaving badly in
seeeking to "sex a 15-year old" may have really loved her and was going to
Mobile to profess his love and devotion. Really? How do you know that?

I doubt that Larry Parr could be certain of Alex Sherzer's real motives.

To reach such bizarre conclusions, one can only conclude that Parr has
mastered the Star-Trek Vulcan Mind Grip and has been able to gleen this
information from the brains of Dr. Sherzer, agent Stabler, and god knows
who else.

In fairness to Larry Parr, I don't regard all his conclusions about the Alex
Sherzer case as equally "bizarre". Some of his conclusions seem more plausible
than others to me.

Unlike the jury, I was not there when all the admissible evidence was presented.
The jury heard all that evidence and reached its verdict, and I respect it.

'A just medium prevents all conclusions.'
--Laurence Sterne (Tristram Shandy)

--Nick