"Creep catchers" - Asset or Detriment


JLM
#1
Surrey 'Creep Catchers' claims RCMP officer caught in sting - British Columbia - CBC News


Looks like one "Creep" has been caught and one cop's life has been destroyed (at least temporarily). Is progress being made?
 
Curious Cdn
#2
I'm surprised that it's not considered to be some sort of entrapment and that the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Where's that FN ambulance chaser when you need him?
 
taxslave
+1
#3
If the rcmp wold have released the name of the right cop in the beginning much problems could have been prevented. Creep Catchers can do many things the police cannot do which is partly why they are much more successful.They also don't need to make the evidence stand up in our joke of a just us system.
 
PoliticalNick
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'm surprised that it's not considered to be some sort of entrapment and that the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Where's that FN ambulance chaser when you need him?

Canada has very lax rules around entrapment and they only apply to the cops. A cop has to basically light up a joint then hand it to you then arrest you. If they pressure you to buy some drugs or an UC posing as a hooker asks you multiple times before you agree. It is a lot different her than down south.
 
JLM
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

If the rcmp wold have released the name of the right cop in the beginning much problems could have been prevented. Creep Catchers can do many things the police cannot do which is partly why they are much more successful.They also don't need to make the evidence stand up in our joke of a just us system.


Before it was ascertained it was the right cop. What if it turned out he was merely meeting his grand daughter to wish her happy birthday? (or a dozen other plausible explanations)

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Canada has very lax rules around entrapment and they only apply to the cops. A cop has to basically light up a joint then hand it to you then arrest you. If they pressure you to buy some drugs or an UC posing as a hooker asks you multiple times before you agree. It is a lot different her than down south.


While that sh*t happens a lot, Nick, it's not typical of the average cop.
 
taxslave
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Before it was ascertained it was the right cop. What if it turned out he was merely meeting his grand daughter to wish her happy birthday? (or a dozen other plausible explanations)




While that sh*t happens a lot, Nick, it's not typical of the average cop.

He was meeting her because Creek Catchers set him up online by having him believe he was talking to a 15 year old girl. No possibility of a mistake. It wasn't creek catchers that gave out the wrong name. The RCMP then compounded the problem by not commenting.
 
Machjo
#7
If the RCMP collects evidence as well as the local police do, then thank goodness for Creep Catchers.

If it's a matter of ensuring the evidence has not been tampered with (e.g. collusion between biased witnesses, photoshopping, etc.), there are solutions other than telling Creep Catchers to not help. For example, Creep Catchers could inform the police of what they are doing and when a creep bites, immediately inform the police to send a witness to oversee what they are doing. Inversely, the police could do the same. When a creep bites in a police investigation, invite Creep Catchers to stand as witness to back up the police.

This would have two advantages:

1. Keep the police and Creep Catchers more honest and so protect an unjustly accused, and

2. Protect the police and Creep Catchers from false accusations of them having made false claims.

Essentually two sides of the same coin, keeping the police and Creep Catchers honest and keeping the accused honest too. It protects a falsely accused from corruption and the the police and Creep Ctchers from false accusations made by the rightfuly accused.

As for entrapment, I'm in two minds about it. Obviously it's not right for a anyone to actively encourage a person to break the law. If they do, the law should punish that person. However, should the person who is entrapped break the law, he should be punished too for breaking the law. Entrapment should be no excuse for breaking the law, two wrongs don't make a right.

If a cop knows he can be punished for entrapment, he'll be more careful about engaging in it. But if a person who is entrapped knows that entrapment is no excuse, then he too will think twice about using entrapment as an excuse.

That said, everyone should be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't protect 100% against false accusations, but it helps.
 
PoliticalNick
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Before it was ascertained it was the right cop. What if it turned out he was merely meeting his grand daughter to wish her happy birthday? (or a dozen other plausible explanations)

Creep catchers does a lot of work on the internet before arranging a meeting. The guys here in Alberta have outed a number of people. It's pretty easy to tell by the guilty looks and how quick they want to get away and hide their identity these a$$holes are pedos.
 
Machjo
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

He was meeting her because Creek Catchers set him up online by having him believe he was talking to a 15 year old girl. No possibility of a mistake. It wasn't creek catchers that gave out the wrong name. The RCMP then compounded the problem by not commenting.


Probably. But we can never exclude other possibilities.

I'm an undercover cop, go online, chat under the guise of a fifteen-year-old girl, and someone who claims to be a grown man wants to meet up with me. He describes what he looks like ad his name. I contact my teem, and we set the trap. Heck, maybe even hire a fifteen year owl high school kid on weekends as a prop. The man gives identifies himself by a certain name and describes his appearance.

A few minutes later, someone who fits the description arrives, meets the girl, asks her name, she gives it, he identifies by his name, and the cops pounce.

A few minutes later, another girl arrives by the same name as that girl, and another man. That girl was going to meet a man who was a friend of the family who was to give her a ride to see other family in another town. The man is the one the cops intended to snatch.

Oops!

Highly unlikely, I know.

Might happen once in a thousand busts. But afte the police has been doing it for years, the statistical probability of this happening increases. Again, highly improbable, too much coincidence to be easily believable, but within the realm of possibility. The police always needs to cover its bases on these matters.

That's why the police would have the man clarity why he wants to meet her. Plus, once they meet, the police might even want to allow her to hop in his car with a set of questions to ask to be sure she is the one he intended to pick up and not coincidentally there to pick up some other girl who is now looking for him. She'd want to clarify that he is the one who had sent the text messages and not someone else because he shares a computer with someone else, and clarify what it is he wants. She could be wired with recording devices, so as soon as the police have what they want, the unmarked police car following them turns on the syren, pulls them over, then makes the arrest.

If while they're chatting in the car, they both sound confused, he starts feeling uncomfortable as he figures he picked up the wrong person, and immediately drives her back to drop her off where he'd picked her up, or, if she already said what the man she intended to meet was looking for sex and she looks young, he immediately brings her to the police, or returns to pick up the girl he intended to pick up first and then they all go to the police station together, then maybe the police could pull him over right away, explain the situation, retrieve the police girl, and bring her back to try to hool up with the other man whom she was supposed to meet.

Life can through strange and unexpected curve balls sometimes. That's why we have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's why the police need to know how to collect evidence. They are useless if they don't know how to operate recording devices, or how to go undercover, collect proper and thorough witness statements, keep an open mind as to other possibilities, and unless protecting a person's safety comes before making an arrest (which could happen in some cases), wait till they have the proof it takes before making an arrest.

If the polcie must intervene to protect someone prematurely, it might make sence even then to not make an arrest right away if public safety is not immediately at risk, so they can try to hook hi again.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Creep catchers does a lot of work on the internet before arranging a meeting. The guys here in Alberta have outed a number of people. It's pretty easy to tell by the guilty looks and how quick they want to get away and hide their identity these a$$holes are pedos.


I'm not familiar with Creep Catchers. But if they do a better job than the local police (and I have no experience with the RCMP, so can't comment on that), then thank goodness for Creep Catchers. Maybe they can teach the police a thing or two about how to attach recording devices to their bodies, how to go undercover, how to operate a recording device, how to bring witnesses with him to back him up, etc.

From the little that I have read, it appears that Creep Catchers do in fact do that.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

I'm surprised that it's not considered to be some sort of entrapment and that the evidence is therefore not admissible.

Where's that FN ambulance chaser when you need him?

I'm not at all surprised that you're surprised, given the level of knowledge of the law you demonstrate here.
 
PoliticalNick
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Probably. But we can never exclude other possibilities.

I'm an undercover cop, go online, chat under the guise of a fifteen-year-old girl, and someone who claims to be a grown man wants to meet up with me. He describes what he looks like ad his name. I contact my teem, and we set the trap. Heck, maybe even hire a fifteen year owl high school kid on weekends as a prop. The man gives identifies himself by a certain name and describes his appearance.

A few minutes later, someone who fits the description arrives, meets the girl, asks her name, she gives it, he identifies by his name, and the cops pounce.

A few minutes later, another girl arrives by the same name as that girl, and another man. That girl was going to meet a man who was a friend of the family who was to give her a ride to see other family in another town. The man is the one the cops intended to snatch.

Oops!

Highly unlikely, I know.

Might happen once in a thousand busts. But afte the police has been doing it for years, the statistical probability of this happening increases. Again, highly improbable, too much coincidence to be easily believable, but within the realm of possibility. The police always needs to cover its bases on these matters.

That's why the police would have the man clarity why he wants to meet her. Plus, once they meet, the police might even want to allow her to hop in his car with a set of questions to ask to be sure she is the one he intended to pick up and not coincidentally there to pick up some other girl who is now looking for him. She'd want to clarify that he is the one who had sent the text messages and not someone else because he shares a computer with someone else, and clarify what it is he wants. She could be wired with recording devices, so as soon as the police have what they want, the unmarked police car following them turns on the syren, pulls them over, then makes the arrest.

If while they're chatting in the car, they both sound confused, he starts feeling uncomfortable as he figures he picked up the wrong person, and immediately drives her back to drop her off where he'd picked her up, or, if she already said what the man she intended to meet was looking for sex and she looks young, he immediately brings her to the police, or returns to pick up the girl he intended to pick up first and then they all go to the police station together, then maybe the police could pull him over right away, explain the situation, retrieve the police girl, and bring her back to try to hool up with the other man whom she was supposed to meet.

Life can through strange and unexpected curve balls sometimes. That's why we have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's why the police need to know how to collect evidence. They are useless if they don't know how to operate recording devices, or how to go undercover, collect proper and thorough witness statements, keep an open mind as to other possibilities, and unless protecting a person's safety comes before making an arrest (which could happen in some cases), wait till they have the proof it takes before making an arrest.

If the polcie must intervene to protect someone prematurely, it might make sence even then to not make an arrest right away if public safety is not immediately at risk, so they can try to hook hi again.

WTF? Where do you dream this sh^t up? The scenario you present has odds that would be like winning the lotto 2 weeks in a row. I'm pretty sure Creep Catchers get him to exchange photos before the meeting, I would so I knew it was the right guy.

I understand nothing is really impossible but nobody is stupid enough to go try to catch someone with a description of 'a white guy with brown hair driving a white truck'.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

WTF? Where do you dream this sh^t up? The scenario you present has odds that would be like winning the lotto 2 weeks in a row. I'm pretty sure Creep Catchers get him to exchange photos before the meeting, I would so I knew it was the right guy.

I understand nothing is really impossible but nobody is stupid enough to go try to catch someone with a description of 'a white guy with brown hair driving a white truck'.

Like I said. I'm not familiar with Creep Catchers, so I would presume that they do cross their t's and dot their i's.
 
JLM
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Creep catchers does a lot of work on the internet before arranging a meeting. The guys here in Alberta have outed a number of people. It's pretty easy to tell by the guilty looks and how quick they want to get away and hide their identity these a$$holes are pedos.


Or they could (not very often) be in a hurry to get away as they fear being wrongly accused of being a pedophile.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Like I said. I'm not familiar with Creep Catchers, so I would presume that they do cross their t's and dot their i's.


Except in the one case of mistaken identity in B.C. Who was it who said - "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted"?
 
PoliticalNick
#14
Wow, a lot of people protecting pedos today.
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Wow, a lot of people protecting pedos today.


No- more like protecting people who wrongly accuse people of being pedos. It's one of those endeavours where 99.9% accuracy isn't good enough.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Surrey 'Creep Catchers' claims RCMP officer caught in sting - British Columbia - CBC News


Looks like one "Creep" has been caught and one cop's life has been destroyed (at least temporarily). Is progress being made?

There are civil remedies available to the cop.
 
PoliticalNick
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

No- more like protecting people who wrongly accuse people of being pedos. It's one of those endeavours where 99.9% accuracy isn't good enough.

When it comes to protecting my kids 50/50 works for me, and that's being generous.
 
Machjo
#18
I'd imagine the police can bluff too.
I'm a cop. I think you're guilty but can't prove it conclusively. So I ask you if you really believe that we haven't been tracking you online for some time.

You break down and confess and I have it on audio.

Success!

Or you look at me cross-eyed and say I must be confusing you for someone else. You beg me to call your witnesses, alibis, volunteering to give a DNA sample and finger prints, even willing to lend me your computer to check it, no warrant needed.

Suddenly I'm thinking either you just returned the bluff or you really are innocent and we got the wrong guy.

I take you up on your offer so as to make sure you weren't bluffing yourself and go from there.

I have no doubt smart cops know how to play mind games with the truly guilty.

A guilty party might not know how much the police really knows, so more likely to confess on some basic evidence even. An innocent, even if found in the most incriminating of circumstances, will be confident the police won't find anything. Though granted some smart criminals can be good bluffers.
Collecting witness and aliby statements fast is important too. First, memeries fade. Second, you don't want to give people a chance to collude if they're guilty.

Third, you don't want to lay a charge and then all the later evidence shows that he's probably innocent. That can make the police look stupid in front of the judge.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#19
Or, if you listen to your lawyer and have a shred of sense, you don't talk to the cops at all. They are interested only in arresting you. The prosecutor is interested only in convicting you. None of them give two hoots about your guilt or innocence.

Save your arguments for the judge and jury. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.
 
Johnnny
+1
#20
I think the idea of vigilantism is a bad thing but then again, catching a cop is pretty interesting to say the least...
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Or, if you listen to your lawyer and have a shred of sense, you don't talk to the cops at all. They are interested only in arresting you. The prosecutor is interested only in convicting you. None of them give two hoots about your guilt or innocence.

Save your arguments for the judge and jury. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.

Now that's a stupid system.

Finding the truth should be paramount to 'winning' the case. It's not a soccer match.

Actually, my friend's case does seem like that though. Before she got a lawywer, she giving them everything they wanted and more. They themselves didn't even bother to check. They got pie in the face later at her hearing.

But it shouldn't be that way. There should be a point where, especially if the person is giving the police information an asking them to check it out, the police should be duty bound to collect evidence. Sure it may or may not be a reliable witness, or it may or may not be genuine proof as opposed to fabricated phtoshop, etc. But still, the police should at least look at it to determine.

If the evidence starts to show the person to be innocent and the police have nothing to counter it, why waste taxpayer dollars?

Insane.

In the case in this OP, it might be different. I'm jsut talking generally that the job should be to reveal the truth, not charge the person at all cost.
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

When it comes to protecting my kids 50/50 works for me, and that's being generous.


So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?

What do you expect? It's PoliticalNick.

Now don't get me wrong. When a person's safety is at stake, we need to act even before we know for sure. But it is possible for the police to intervene in that case without arresting anyone or laying charges against someone. For example, it could get a court order to remove the child from the family temporarily based on the minimal available evidence until they can determine for sure, after which they will either return the child if it's a false alarm or make an arrest later. They could even surveil the suspect in the mean time to ensure he doesn't hurt anyone until they're reasonably sure.

Now I don't know if the law could require him to wear a GPS without charges being laid against him, but something to explore. An arrest should be done after an investigation. You don't arrest a person and then look like an idiot standing before the judge. 'Well, our gut told us he was guilty your honour.'
 
PoliticalNick
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you don't give a f**k if some innocent person's life is destroyed?

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.

99.999% of the time I go the other way on legal rights but when it comes to pedophiles I make an exception
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.

And if I'm not mistaken, the police can intervene to protect a child without necessarily making an arrest. Maybe TB can correct me on that.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Like I said. I'm not familiar with Creep Catchers, so I would presume that they do cross their t's and dot their i's.

Ummmmmm no!
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Ummmmmm no!

Like I said. I'm not familiar with them. Maybe they don't cross their t's and dot their i's, which could explain the RCMP's criticism of their activities.
 
JLM
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

No, I give a f^ck. I just give more of a f^ck about protecting my kids. I would rather be wrong and apologize later than be right and have done nothing.


Apologies are good when you bump a person in the hallway or neglect to hold the door open for someone, but for a lot of things they don't undo the damage!
 
PoliticalNick
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Apologies are good when you bump a person in the hallway or neglect to hold the door open for someone, but for a lot of things they don't undo the damage!

You got kids right? Daughters? Would you let them be abused until you were certain or would you remove the potential danger immediately and worry about being right or wrong later?

It's all well and good to take the moral high road but would you really do that regarding your own child?
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Like I said. I'm not familiar with them. Maybe they don't cross their t's and dot their i's, which could explain the RCMP's criticism of their activities.

It's a bunch of punk kids.
 
no new posts