Video: “To Catch The Predator”
posted at 9:42 pm on December 6, 2006 by Allahpundit
Some of us need to fake it. Some of us don’t.
It’s funny even if you haven’t seen the Dateline episode it’s lampooning. But it’s a lot funnier if you have.
Update: Dateline’s actually done several of these programs. Here’s one.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well… it beats “Alien Vs. Predator”
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 6, 2006 at 9:52 PM
One also should see Predator, no?
RightWinged on December 6, 2006 at 9:52 PM
“What da hell ah you.”
Awesome.
Thanks, AP.
Chris L. on December 6, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Funny stuff! This is pretty cool too, if you like Van Halen.
Scot on December 6, 2006 at 10:07 PM
my question about those dateline episodes always is – why do the guys who get busted give the okay to show their face on TV?
lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:12 PM
They don’t give permission.
A waiver is not required when you are filmed/caught on tape in the commission of a crime.
SilverStar830 on December 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Isn’t it? Cops always hides criminals faces and they are always caught during the commission or just afterwards?
lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:21 PM
So you cooked up a story and dropped the six of us in a meatgrinder?
benrand on December 6, 2006 at 10:35 PM
The Police hide the faces in videos/photos of criminals in some cases to avoid tainting the prosecution of the accused. Witnesses may need to identify the perpetrator of a crime at some later time, the Judge may order it, it depends on the risk of a mistrial outweighing the gain of informing the public. Often, when Police have run out of leads or hit a road block in an investigation of a crime caught on tape, especially a heinous crime like a liquor store robbery where someone is shot, or a high yield crime like a bank robbery, they will air tape or photo stills to the public to assist in the investigation.
There is case law on this but I can’t recall the cite. A search on Google may locate the case law but I tried for 5 minutes and was getting sooo many hits on the search terms I decided not to spend half the night trying to find it. I’m familiar with the case law on this since I’m a Law Enforcement Officer veteran of nearly 20 years. It’s out there and if you’re of the mind to spend your Wednesday night finding it, have a go! LoL
SilverStar830 on December 6, 2006 at 10:35 PM
I meant to add:
Often, when Police have run out of leads or hit a road block in an investigation of a crime caught on tape, especially a heinous crime like a liquor store robbery where someone is shot, or a high yield crime like a bank robbery, they will air unaltered tape or photo stills to the public to assist in the investigation.
sorry ’bout that chief!
SilverStar830 on December 6, 2006 at 10:39 PM
Isn’t it? Cops always hides criminals faces and they are always caught during the commission or just afterwards?
lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:21 PM
I think you’re right lorien. Didn’t they say this girl was actually 19 – even though he thought he was meeting someone much younger? However, I’ve seen other Dateline episodes where the girl was indeed younger. Until this guy is convicted of the crime, they have to treat him as innocent.
thedecider on December 6, 2006 at 10:39 PM
I saw the dateline where the guy brought his kid (!!) with him to meet the “13 year old”. That was really messed up.
lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:45 PM
It has nothing to do with conviction of the crime. I’m telling you they can air video without permission when the video is of a suspect commiting a crime, regardless of guilt or innocence. They show accused criminals faces on the News ALL THE TIME. But as previously discussed (ie: back read!), they sometimes pixalte or black out the accused criminals face so as not to jeopardize prosecution for the crime.
It might have something to do with entrapment though. However, numerous people arrested as a result of that show’s undercover operations in concert with Law Enforcement have tried that defense and failed, even upon appeal. At a later time the U.S. Supreme Court may take up that issue and reverse the convictions. Only time will tell.
SilverStar830 on December 6, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Thanks for the info, SilverStar. What I thought I knew is what you say you know, so now I know that what I knew was what was generally already known.
Seriously, it’s an excellent summary
Janos Hunyadi on December 6, 2006 at 11:07 PM
It really is “messed up”. I’m glad Dateline does these episodes. I’m sure the search for ratings is involved, but it’s a story that needs to be told, with the perps publicly humiliated. My grandmother used to have an expression I find useful for child sexual predators: “Hell isn’t hot enough for people like that”.
thedecider on December 6, 2006 at 11:17 PM
The screen caption and the user ID almost made me spit my beverage.
SouthernGent on December 6, 2006 at 11:25 PM
I could have done without the photos he sent…. they were a little too good
retired on December 7, 2006 at 12:11 AM
Dare I say it?
Truly a classic movie, very quotable if you can do a decent Schwarzenegger impression. Try substituting Sean Connery for laughs.
austinnelly on December 7, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Silverstar830 wrote:
I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you claim.
There is Lauro v. Charles, 219 F.3d 202, 212 n.7 (2d Cir. 2000), where the court said that a “perp walk” denotes “a posture connoting guilt” and that absent a legitimate law enforcement purpose, perp walks are unconstitutional. see also Caldarola v. Co. of Westchester, 343 F.3d 570, 573 (2d Cir. 2003).
In a National Law Journal article, authors William R. Mitchelson Jr. and Mark T. Calloway make the case that video of an accused, but not convicted gives an unfair advantage to the prosecutors, especially when white collar crimes are involved as opposed to people accused of violent crimes. Originally, perp walks were done only with violent criminals to insure the safety of the community. But Rudi Giuliani “patented” the perp walk for white collar criminals when he was US Atty for New York, where there was no threat to the community.
Now a perp walk occurs after the arrest. Dateline is showing what happened before the arrest, and clearly places the defendant in a “posture connotating guilt.” In fact, one might say that Dateline is acting as judge and jury in the process.
Certainly such video would be evidence of guilt if admitted at trial. But when shown to a national audience before the trial, Dateline becomes an arm of the prosecution. I’m not sure that there is legitimate law enfocement purpose involved in doing that. I think such might be a violation of the right to a fair trial, instead.
Dateline (the show that got caught deliberately exploding GMC trucks to illustrate alleged poor gas tank design) is skating on the edge if the people they show are acquited, from the point of view of being liable for defamation if they show faces without the subject’s permission.
That’s what happended to Geraldo Rivera when lost a suit after he broadcasted the face of an innocent 3rd party at an arrest scene some years back.
I’m betting that the people arrested have signed waivers, and might even be paid as well.
georgej on December 7, 2006 at 2:45 AM
That was funny. The original Dateline show is also pretty funny, especially when they run.
Free Kurdistan on December 7, 2006 at 2:52 AM
This should be the Dateline theme song.
Scot on December 7, 2006 at 2:53 AM
There was one on a few weeks ago where they caught a rich-looking doctor from San Francisco. Worst part was when he called his wife to come bail him out he told her to “leave the girls at home.”
mhexel on December 7, 2006 at 3:08 AM
“Buncha slack jawed faggots, this stuff’ll make ya a godamn sexual tyrannasaurus … just like me.” – Jessie Ventura
Tony737 on December 7, 2006 at 5:07 AM
What’s got Beely so spookud?
benrand on December 7, 2006 at 6:39 AM
This is SUCH a guy thing…..Next.
seejanemom on December 7, 2006 at 8:37 AM
This is beyond reality. Next they’ll try to get michal jackson on this show. Or somebody just as famous.
I think this series interferes with the right to trial by jury of peers. Something about prejudicing the jury pool.
And anyone who solicits online for underage sex knowing it is a crime deserves the full punishment of the law. They are playing russian roulette with the lives of everyone in their family. No excuses allowed. None.
tormod on December 7, 2006 at 8:55 AM
Great video. As for the legal issue: I don’t have time to reresearch this with cites, so take this for what its worth.
1) You need a waiver in cases of a hiden video because, for one reason, many states prohibit the secret recording of conversations. For example, that’s why HBO needs a waiver to air the conversations on Taxi Cab Confessions.
2) You don’t need a waiver if the camera or other recording device is clearly visible and the subject know he is being recorded. Under these circumstances the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is the typical circumstance when a reporter shows up with a film crew and holds a mic to the subject’s face. This is why Sacha Baron Cohen, AKA Borat, didn’t need waivers for the “interviews” he conducted.
3. As for the “perp walk discussion” above, that is not relevant to the legality of the recording. It relates to whether the “perp” can get a fair trial, and not to whether the recording was legal and whether a waiver was needed.
Perp walks also occur in public places, e.g., outside court houses, where there is no expectation of privacy. This is why you can walk around the city all day with your camcorder, or, if you choose. You could even sit on the sub way and snap pics of your fellow passenger or turn on the tape recorder and record the conversation of the two people loudly talking next to you.
Mig on December 7, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Wow. People feeling sorry for online predators whom prey on tender young girls and boys. If it was an infringement on anyones rights, does anyone here think the cops and this television show would do what they’ve been doing all this time and still be getting away with it? Does anyone think they’d have all the convictions that they have? Does anyone think any last-in-the-class lawyer would assume the same things as I see assumed here and not play that card… yet they lose that play? Does anyone think that upon appeal of their conviction(s) these people would prevail and all kinds of civil rights violations would have shut down the show with mega-million dollar lawsuits and resulted in Police agencies across the entire country being censured? Does anyone here think that the best and brightest lawyers money can buy haven’t already mulled over all the points being brought up here in the defense of these vile putrid scum on behalf of the deep pocket television corporation and the law enforcement agencies in order to assure there is no liability and danger to the prosecution of those less-than-human wastes of space?
There is no rights violation. There is no unlawful prejudice. Yes, it prejudices the jury pool… because it’s evidence in the commision of a crime… duh! It’s no different than being caught on tape robbing a bank, or better yet, being caught in a Police agency orchestrated sting operation where it’s ALL filmed. Whether or not it is entrapment may be a consideration in some cases but it’s purely and totally lawful.
SilverStar830 on December 7, 2006 at 11:17 AM
I’m not sure why this is funny. The Dateline shows like this are foolish in an ironic pandering way, even though the topic is quite serious. But spoofing this kind of story just isn’t funny to me.
Lawrence on December 7, 2006 at 12:16 PM
If you’re talking about me, just covering the bases with my opinion. See the last paragraph of my entry. I’ll stand on that.
tormod on December 7, 2006 at 1:50 PM