St. Louis man indicted on sex trafficking, enticement of children

James Patrick Grady, 58, allegedly answered an advertisement that young female minors were available for sex.

The ad was placed by law enforcement officers conducting an undercover operation into people attempting to purchase children or their services.

Hat Tip to cripjak

| Bob Cronkleton

Comments

[Moral City USA]

How can he be both the solicitor and the trafficker?

[Wisdom]

I agree. And isn't this entrapment?

Catch those who post or make available this stuff instead of those who look out of curiosity. I know that not all are that way but why give the chance to slip to the other side of the fence.

[Man in a Mission]

Wisdom -

Entrapment requires proving that one was trapped into doing something one would not have done if the law enforcement officials had not provided the means, motivation, as well as the opportunity. Also, it would have to be proven that the law enforcement behavior was specifically targeted at the suspect.

Simply placing the ad, and seeing if someone responds is not entrapment, nor is continuing a discussion/negotiation as part of the offender initiating contact. The suspect proved willingness by following up on the ad. Someone not willing to break the law would either ignore the ad or report it to authorities.

[Moral City USA]

Man in a Mission, is that a legal defintion of entrapment or just one you made up? Let's say it is official and just break that down.

"Entrapment requires proving that one was trapped into doing something one would not have done...."

And if the ad had not been placed (by law enforcement), no one could have responded.

"if the law enforcement officials had not provided the means, motivation, as well as the opportunity. "

They did provide all of this.

"Also, it would have to be proven that the law enforcement behavior was specifically targeted at the suspect."

Well if they were not targeting a suspect, why did they place the ad? Of course they were targeting.

Additionally there is no victim. So if this does not meet the defintion of entrapment, I fail to see any circumstance that would.

A few years ago, NYPD placed handbags in the subway stations to see if anyone would take one. They did. NYPD rush in and busted them for theft. The courts threw it out of course on entrapment. Well, what is the difference here.

If you want to argue exceptions to entrapment based on protecting children, that is one thing, but dont stand there and say this is not entrapment because it was TOTALLY entrapment.

[Rob Taylor]

Courts have ruled stings like these admissible for years. The New York case was called entrapment (by liberal judges who routinely find ways to put murderers and rapists back on the streets by the way) because it is supposed that people who wouldn't normally be thieves would be just to tempted by a purse to avoid stealing it. The case above would be more like the police leaving one decoy purse on a train where people routinely left their purses.

This degenerate saw an ad for child sex, pursued it and got busted. Not entrapment, but the price people who exploit children to gratify their sexual desires pay.

[Man in a Mission]

Moral City USA -

Here is a legal definition of entrapment:

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

Simply providing an opportunity for the man to engage in criminal behavior, as was done by the placement of the ad is not sufficient for entrapment. No one persuaded or trapped this man into answering the ad or to seek to have sex with underage girls. He took that initiative upon himself.

[Man in a Mission]

BTW, Grady was a parish priest at St. Raphael the Archangel in St. Louis prior to his initial arrest in July. Subsequent to his arrest child pornography was found on his computer.

[me]

Great analysis, MIAM!

[Moral City USA]

And you can argue that if the ad had not been there, he would no have answered. Could not have. The police still generated a crimal without a victim here. That is a fact.

[Moral City USA]

GREAT ANALYSIS????

He didn't have his initial definition of entrapment totally correct. He was close, but the actual definition does not include anything about....

"Also, it would have to be proven that the law enforcement behavior was specifically targeted at the suspect"

That was not included in the second (actual) legal definition.

[Moral City USA]

Do you guys also worry about socialism from Obama....while you are simultanesouly promoating fascism?

[Man in a Mission]

Moral City USA -

So your problem is that I suggested a tighter standard than the legal definition? One that would have made it easier to substantiate entrapment?

However, you are wrong. Because entrapment requires that the person entrapped be induced or persuaded to do something that they otherwise would not have done without the active role of the law enforcement officials, that requires that the law enforcement officials targeted that person and directed their efforts to get the person to do something they otherwise would not have done.

Please, do try to comprehend what you are reading. It's not that hard.

[Moral City USA]

No, my problem is that you first made up your own definition of entrapment. That definition was actually a broader definition than the legal definition. "Tighter" has to have some reference to who side your one.

You said:

"Also, it would have to be proven that the law enforcement behavior was specifically targeted at the suspect."

You mean that they actually had to target an individual by name. That was not correct and not included in the legal definition.

Do you also realized that there is an "innocent until proven guilty" cause in the Constitution? Everyone has forgotten that the burden of proof is on law enforcement....not the individual to prove the police intent. The police must prove that they did NOT entrap.

Please dont try to understand the bigger picture and/or the Constitution. It's not that hard.

[Man in a Mission]

Moral City USA -

Guess what - I didn't say he was guilty, just that this investigative technique wasn't entrapment.

Also you said: "Do you also realized that there is an "innocent until proven guilty" cause in the Constitution?"

You can find the full text of the U.S. Constitution, from the U.S. Archives here.

You can find the full text of the Bill of Rights (the 1st through the 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution), from the U.S. Archives here.

You can find the full text of the 11th through the 27th (last) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, from the U.S. Archives here.

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, or any of the 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. You're right that it is not that hard to understand the Constitution. So one wonders why you don't understand it better.

[Moral City USA]

Sex crimes are, by social nature, guilty until proven innocent.

When I did jury duty, I was reminded over and over again of the presumption of innocence. It is a part of the fabric of our country despite fascists like you who want to sacrifice it.

I admit, you are correct. The presumption of innocence was actually established by a Supreme Court decision in 1895: Coffin Vs the United States. Still the law in the U.S.....until a majority of trusting folks like you changes it. Nothing last forever especially when it’s sacrificial for partisan political gain.

I guess if its fascism you want...fascism you will get. But remember, with fascism, comes socialism. When you promote fascism all the way....don’t complain later about the socialist outcome at the end.

[Man in a Mission]

Moral City USA -

I am amused by your high drudgeon and your characterization of me as someone who wants to instill fascism or do away with the presumption of innocence.

I responded to another person's question about entrapment - which you seem to think this is. I responded to your wild statements with citations and definitions of the law.

You have not provided anything other than your opinion that the investigative processes used in this case (a sting operation) is entrapment). I am sorry, but your opinion is not the Constitution or the arbiter of freedom.

If you feel you have any information to impart about this case, or about the legal arguments in this case, I would be willing to continue this conversation, provided you present some basis other than your opinion. However, based on your resort to insults and ad hominem attacks, I belief you have nothing to add, and continued discussion of this with you would be futile as you seem to me to just be another raving reactionary with no understanding of the law or the issues you claim are so offended by the particulars of this case.

[Moral City USA]

So you completely disregard my presentation of Coffin vs. US that provided the presumption of innocence right to all of us?

That was not my opinion. That was the opinion of the Supreme Court. How is that not any basis? How do you not understand that court ruling as an understanding of the law. It is the law.

It appears that you just irrationally dismiss any and everything if you dont like it.

I am done too. You will never see facts or reason. Fortunately, the courts (and millions of Americans) mostly recognize the presumption of innocence. It does not matter if you dont.

[Man in a Mission]

Moral City USA -

The only person presuming guilt here is you. You are presuming this is entrapment, therefore presuming guilt on the part of the authorities investigating online attempts to have sex with underage children.

dont stand there and say this is not entrapment because it was TOTALLY entrapment.

I rebutted your statement by both posting a more formal definition of entrapment and discussing how that definition did not apply in this case.

You refused to accept that my layman's definition was in line with the formal definition to which you responded with a flawed invocation of the presumption of innocence and a specious and false restatement of my original layman's definition, that demonstrated your lack of knowledge about the US Constitution, the origins and nature of the legal presumption of innocence, and this case in specific.

Your citation of Coffin et al. v. United States was ignored because it was irrelevant. Not because it is not part of the law, but because it is not binding on me as a private individual. I can presume whatever I want, unless and until I am part of a particular legal case. You are demonstrating that you don't understand presumption of innocence is a legal precept the defines where the burden of proof lay in a court of law.

I never suggested that Grady had to prove his innocence.

Once again you have contributed nothing but ad hominem attacks.

I would suggest you read a bit more about legal concepts before you attempt to claim people don't understand or are misrepresenting those concepts. Further, I would suggest you at least try to understand what someone is saying instead of striking out in anger and ignorance.

[Jo Jo]

Moral City, while you were busy thinking of empty, inflammatory one-liners, here's what Miami did--based on his prior evaluations of your posts, he tried to dumb it down into a simple summary on his first post. Thereafter, you tried to get cutesy and argue irrelevant points / semantics.
However, the thrust of his definition is substantially the same--the suspect has to be inticed to do something he was not predisposed to do. Here, that did not happen because it is self-evident that he was predisposed to having illegal sexual relations with underage girls.

"Please dont try to understand the bigger picture and/or the Constitution. It's not that hard."

Posted by: Moral City USA | Monday, November 09, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I also don't get why you DON'T want him to understand either the Constitution or the bigger picture--your arguments seem dependent on them. Cheers.