NBC sued for 100 mil for catching a predator too well

[titania029]

I just read a little more on the show. You're right, the decoys are part of Perverted-Justice, not police officers. This is more controversial than I thought. I'll have to watch next time it's on. I still wouldn't say it's entrapment because while NBC is taking an aggressive approach, it's a hard argument to say Dateline is an agent for the State.

 

[Loganz]

A major element of entrapment is that the government agent has to induce someone, who was otherwise unwilling, to commit the crime. Thus most of the predators in these cases can't claim that defense.

It is possible, though, that that by arriving with camera's they are violating the rights of people who have not yet been convicted. Thus there might be some tort claims (false light etc) that arise. (Especially if the perpetrators are not convicted later).

In this case there might be some wrongful death type action. It may be foreseeable that certain people would harm themselves when faced with this situation. There's really no way for NBC to argue that they don't make the show as sensational as possible, which could be deemed reckless disregard by a court.

Interesting! Thank you for supplying a little bit of legal speak to help us understand how a suit like this could be brought to the courts.

What has me baffled is why NBC went to this guy's house? That is not the show's usual MO - all the shows I watched the perp is at the decoy house; they have never gone to the perp's house. Perhaps this is what spurned the suit?

 

[sugarywitch]

It's a potentially complicated issue, that's certainly true. When NBC is showing up with the police in every circumstance, it is clear that the police are relying on the information that NBC gathers to get probable cause/warrants etc. For there not to be some sort of collusion the people working on the show would have to NEVER take instruction or get information from the police, seems highly unlikely. Even if there wasn't direct collusion, if the defendant could show that the police relied on information that they had reason to know was improperly gathered and allowed it to keep happening and continued to rely on it I think the defendant would have a decent case.

What concerns me is that we don't know how NBC is gathering the evidence, if any laws are being broken in the process etc. Granted NBC does not have to follow the same rules as the police in gathering the information if it is a private actor, however, here there is a colorable claim that it's acting as an agent of the state.

Further, until NBC started using TCAP it acknowledged that the organization was willing to flout the law, and was pretty shady. That organization is now basically doing police work for NBC, that to me seems to cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence.

I just read a little more on the show. You're right, the decoys are part of Perverted-Justice, not police officers. This is more controversial than I thought. I'll have to watch next time it's on. I still wouldn't say it's entrapment because while NBC is taking an aggressive approach, it's a hard argument to say Dateline is an agent for the State.

 

[sugarywitch]

Yeah I don't quite know what the deal is with that. Perhaps he backed out and didn't want to go to the decoy's house, but they thought the information in the transcript was enough to confront him anyway? Maybe the guy was high profile enough that it warranted a change of MO?

Interesting! Thank you for supplying a little bit of legal speak to help us understand how a suit like this could be brought to the courts.

What has me baffled is why NBC went to this guy's house? That is not the show's usual MO - all the shows I watched the perp is at the decoy house; they have never gone to the perp's house. Perhaps this is what spurned the suit?

 

[gris]

Interesting!

What has me baffled is why NBC went to this guy's house? That is not the show's usual MO - all the shows I watched the perp is at the decoy house; they have never gone to the perp's house. Perhaps this is what spurned the suit?

NBC/TCAP showed to this "prosecutor's" house because he had been chatting online with the 13 yr old boy asking for sex. Even though he did not showed to the decoys house the police had enough proof (i guess) to show up to his house and question him. As soon as the prsecutor saw Chris Hansen and his crew he shoot himself on the head. Now if was not guilty the why did he do it. Also when the police examine his computer all the files and the harddrive were fyed, now what does that tell you? Just like that nasty "Senator" that shoot himself too after he got caught soliciting sex with a minor. They were guilty. They even probably did something before.

 

[gris]

That coupled with the fact that NBC/TCAP have been accused of doctoring transcripts, begging people to come over when they decide against it etc is highly problematic. .

I really dont think that they beg the predators to come to the decoy house. Those nasty men are the ones that start this whole sex conversation not the decoys. They are the ones that send those nasty pics of them. Even though that was the case I think is better this way then to have predators running around our streets and molesting our children. I dont care how or what they do to caught this sick men, as long as they do it.

I do agree that this show is more about the ratings now then to actually show us and catch the predators. I remember the first season there was no cops involved only Chris H. and the cameras, but those men were free after Chris came up and told them who he was and what he was doing. Thank God police is there waiting for them to arrest them.

 

[sugarywitch]

NBC/TCAP showed to this "prosecutor's" house because he had been chatting online with the 13 yr old boy asking for sex. Even though he did not showed to the decoys house the police had enough proof (i guess) to show up to his house and question him. As soon as the prsecutor saw Chris Hansen and his crew he shoot himself on the head. Now if was not guilty the why did he do it. Also when the police examine his computer all the files and the harddrive were fyed, now what does that tell you? Just like that nasty "Senator" that shoot himself too after he got caught soliciting sex with a minor. They were guilty. They even probably did something before.

The problem with all this is that we have a legal system and you can't reasonably say, "well based on what I saw on TV I think this guy is guilty so therefore he is." We base guilt and innocence on what happens in legal proceedings, NOT our gut instincts which are based on limited information.

Further, there are a number of explanations about why he blew his brains out that suggest that he may not have been guilty. For example, as a prosecutor he probably knew that even if this was a first offense that he didn't even follow through on he was basically toast. In cases like this jurors (understandably, but not necessarily rightfully) think with their hearts and guts, so conviction is likely even if the facts don't support that conviction. If I were his lawyer, no matter how much he said he wasn't guilty (even if the facts supported him) I'd encourage him to plead out because this isn't the kind of thing you want in front of a jury even if you are innocent. But the fact remains that we will never actually know if he was guilty because the actual legal system won't have a chance to deal with him.

 

[Loganz]

gris - I don't think anyone is questioning the late prosecutor's guilt. After all, innocent people do not take their own lives when the police show at their doorstep. I hope you don't think that just because I am curious on the legal aspects of the sister's suit that somehow detracts from or negates the illegal/immoral acts of the deceased. One can be interested in the legal aspects of a case and still believe in the guilt of the decedant.

 

[sugarywitch]

The point is you or I have no way to know what's happening because it's being conducted outside a system with oversight. An ex-producer is claiming that she was fired from NBC for bringing up the fact that there was a state agent problem coupled with the begging and transcript doctoring allegations. So someone who worked there (also potentially with questionable motives, but under penalty of perjury so at least somewhat reliable) says that the things you don't think happen actually do occur.

While you certainly have the right not to care how people are caught, I think that's a very dangerous path to go down. Like I said above, the times when civil rights matter the most are when we don't really care if they are applied. I think it's dangerous to argue it is ok to selectively apply the rule of law and police power, lest they come knocking on your door next.

I really dont think that they beg the predators to come to the decoy house. Those nasty men are the ones that start this whole sex conversation not the decoys. They are the ones that send those nasty pics of them. Even though that was the case I think is better this way then to have predators running around our streets and molesting our children. I dont care how or what they do to caught this sick men, as long as they do it.

I do agree that this show is more about the ratings now then to actually show us and catch the predators. I remember the first season there was no cops involved only Chris H. and the cameras, but those men were free after Chris came up and told them who he was and what he was doing. Thank God police is there waiting for them to arrest them.

 

[sugarywitch]

I may be questioning his guilt. I simply don't buy that killing yourself is tantamount to some kind of admission. Further, based on the facts that we do have we know that he was guilty of solicitation and then not acting on it, nothing more. For all we know he's never acted and this was a first offense that might have convinced him to seek help had he not been confronted in such a manner. Now I'm not saying this is likely or not, what I'm saying is the intervening spectacle that was made of this situation bears examination.

What we have here, is a confrontation, that resulted in a man's death, based on nothing more than what could be a doctored chat room transcript.

gris - I don't think anyone is questioning the late prosecutor's guilt. After all, innocent people do not take their own lives when the police show at their doorstep. I hope you don't think that just because I am curious on the legal aspects of the sister's suit that somehow detracts from or negates the illegal/immoral acts of the deceased. One can be interested in the legal aspects of a case and still believe in the guilt of the decedant.

 

[Loganz]

While you certainly have the right not to care how people are caught, I think that's a very dangerous path to go down. Like I said above, the times when civil rights matter the most are when we don't really care if they are applied. I think it's dangerous to argue it is ok to selectively apply the rule of law and police power, lest they come knocking on your door next.

This is a very valid point, we must step outside of our emotions sometimes and be willing to evaluate all aspects of a case. When one serves on a jury one is asked to consider all the things that you bring up (sugarywitch). Unfortunately, I believe our jury system flawed; because, I do not believe that enough members actually do check their emotions at the deliberation door. Too often, it is emotions and not fact/law that dictate a verdict.

Regardless of one's actions and regardless of how much evidence there is against someone our system is supposed to protect people's rights from being trampled/ignored. When we as a society say this does not matter then we really are opening the door for all sorts of human rights violations. It is not enough to say that if you don't break the law you will not have to worry - there are PLENTY of innocent men and women in prison and jail as we write and read these words from the comfort of our homes.

 

[gris]

I hope you don't think that just because I am curious on the legal aspects of the sister's suit that somehow detracts from or negates the illegal/immoral acts of the deceased. One can be interested in the legal aspects of a case and still believe in the guilt of the decedant.

Not at all - I'm interested in the legal aspects as well. But I cannot see past th efact that he was trying to meet with an underage teen for sex (even thought he did not do it) and to me just the fact that he was having an online chat w/ a 13 yr old decoy about sex is just gross and that person should be punish.

 

[Loganz]

What we have here, is a confrontation, that resulted in a man's death, based on nothing more than what could be a doctored chat room transcript.

True enough. I hope that NBC does not settle this suit and that the facts can come out at trial. I will be interested to see how this effects future TCAP episodes, and if this suit results in a future "class action" suit against NBC, or at least other indiviual suits if it can be proven that Dateline was not always above board in the gathering of its evidence.

 

[sugarywitch]

This is very very true. Though I do have to admit, were I on a jury in a child molestation case, despite my firm belief in the rule of law and our judicial system I'd have a really really hard time checking my emotions at the door. That said I'd certainly do my best to try.

This is a very valid point, we must step outside of our emotions sometimes and be willing to evaluate all aspects of a case. When one serves on a jury one is asked to consider all the things that you bring up (sugarywitch). Unfortunately, I believe our jury system flawed; because, I do not believe that enough members actually do check their emotions at the deliberation door. Too often, it is emotions and not fact/law that dictate a verdict.

Regardless of one's actions and regardless of how much evidence there is against someone our system is supposed to protect people's rights from being trampled/ignored. When we as a society say this does not matter then we really are opening the door for all sorts of human rights violations. It is not enough to say that if you don't break the law you will not have to worry - there are PLENTY of innocent men and women in prison and jail as we write and read these words from the comfort of our homes.

 

[gris]

I may be questioning his guilt. I simply don't buy that killing yourself is tantamount to some kind of admission. Further, based on the facts that we do have we know that he was guilty of solicitation and then not acting on it, nothing more. For all we know he's never acted and this was a first offense that might have convinced him to seek help had he not been confronted in such a manner. Now I'm not saying this is likely or not, what I'm saying is the intervening spectacle that was made of this situation bears examination.

What we have here, is a confrontation, that resulted in a man's death, based on nothing more than what could be a doctored chat room transcript.

Some how I agree with you. Now yes he was a prosecutor and yes he prob thought he was gonna end up in jail Guilty or Not because like you said the jury would have involved their emotions and not think about the law and civil rights,etc. ..... but I cant seem to not think that he probably did something in the past wish made him kill himself - and why would he fryed everything in his computer? that was a very important evidence IMO