You're Busted Buddy!

Off Topic
21

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant.[/quote]

Perhaps you are right. She chose to suck him off and get paid in the process, however, don’t you think it’s sad that she saw no other way out of her situation? She was homeless, so this can be assumed.

That’s why it is ‘preying’ on her. It is an abuse of somebody else’s desperation.

22

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Dude, panhandling is legal in Oklahoma [I believe]. She could sit on the corner with a cup and a sign and make that $20 in an hour. She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant. And, the other posters are right. That dude needs to mind his own business. Not sure how he hasn’t gotten the piss beat out of him yet, or worse.[/quote]

Never said it was illegal. What I said was, what the guy did was immoral. If there are personal consequences for people knowing what he does (while in public), those consequences are entirely his fault and no one elses. I also notice that you didn’t call BS when this line of argument started and the other poster referred to the old guy as the “hard up” person. HE chose to pick up the girl, take her to the park, pay her to suck his dick. He chose the risk. No one did any of that to him.

Hell, doesn’t the wife have a right to know? Why can’t the guy call the dudes wife and tell her the truth? I mean hell, he could end up giving his wife an STD. Why can’t he record a video in a public place and post it on the internet?

I do agree that he will eventually go the way of the “Cheaters” guy and get stabbed or worse.[/quote]

We seem to agree on a lot of points. And, no I don’t think the dude catching the bj was “hard up”. Yes, I just wrote that. Maybe you’re right. Maybe this guy is doing noble work and his vids will deter others from getting hookers on the streetsof Oklahoma. What I’m saying is no one in this scenario is innocent. Not the hooker, not the trick, and certainly not the reporter.

23

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Dude, panhandling is legal in Oklahoma [I believe]. She could sit on the corner with a cup and a sign and make that $20 in an hour. She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant. And, the other posters are right. That dude needs to mind his own business. Not sure how he hasn’t gotten the piss beat out of him yet, or worse.[/quote]

Never said it was illegal. What I said was, what the guy did was immoral. If there are personal consequences for people knowing what he does (while in public), those consequences are entirely his fault and no one elses. I also notice that you didn’t call BS when this line of argument started and the other poster referred to the old guy as the “hard up” person. HE chose to pick up the girl, take her to the park, pay her to suck his dick. He chose the risk. No one did any of that to him.

Hell, doesn’t the wife have a right to know? Why can’t the guy call the dudes wife and tell her the truth? I mean hell, he could end up giving his wife an STD. Why can’t he record a video in a public place and post it on the internet?

I do agree that he will eventually go the way of the “Cheaters” guy and get stabbed or worse.[/quote]

We seem to agree on a lot of points. And, no I don’t think the dude catching the bj was “hard up”. Yes, I just wrote that. Maybe you’re right. Maybe this guy is doing noble work and his vids will deter others from getting hookers on the streetsof Oklahoma. What I’m saying is no one in this scenario is innocent. Not the hooker, not the trick, and certainly not the reporter.[/quote]

“There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit”

No, I don’t think the “reporter” is noble. But he isn’t doing anything wrong or immoral and the old guy isn’t a victim in the least.

24

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Dude, panhandling is legal in Oklahoma [I believe]. She could sit on the corner with a cup and a sign and make that $20 in an hour. She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant. And, the other posters are right. That dude needs to mind his own business. Not sure how he hasn’t gotten the piss beat out of him yet, or worse.[/quote]

The guy filming is not the douchebag in this situation. He’s someone who is trying to stop crime from happening.

This has nothing to do with minding your own business. Crime on the public streets is everyone’s business.

would you feel differently if this was a drug deal? You do know that drugs follow prostitution don’t you? Lots of those men and women working the streets are doing it to feed a drug habit.

I hate those that espouse these “poor man with a terminally ill wife…” scenarios. How many actual times is that the case? Not fucking often.

You may not like the methods, but the guy is trying to get rid of a very insidious element that is invading his community and it is happening publicly. Prostitution is a gateway crime.

I am all for legalizing prostitution to help stop the spread of drugs and violence that happens when it is backstreet dealings. If it were legal it would be safer for everyone and we would get the taxes. But for right now it isn’t and it just brings in more crime.

this is so not a “mind your own business” issue

[/quote]

For the record, I didn’t write nor do I subscribe to the “Terminally ill wife” theory. The guy was probably just tired of rubbing one out 'cause his gross old wife won’t fuck him anymore. Shit, maybe he’s just a skeez and likes fucking hookers. Who knows. What I’m saying is no one here is innocent, and the reporter is trying to get famous under the guise of “crusading for the people”.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Dude, panhandling is legal in Oklahoma [I believe]. She could sit on the corner with a cup and a sign and make that $20 in an hour. She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant. And, the other posters are right. That dude needs to mind his own business. Not sure how he hasn’t gotten the piss beat out of him yet, or worse.[/quote]

Never said it was illegal. What I said was, what the guy did was immoral. If there are personal consequences for people knowing what he does (while in public), those consequences are entirely his fault and no one elses. I also notice that you didn’t call BS when this line of argument started and the other poster referred to the old guy as the “hard up” person. HE chose to pick up the girl, take her to the park, pay her to suck his dick. He chose the risk. No one did any of that to him.

Hell, doesn’t the wife have a right to know? Why can’t the guy call the dudes wife and tell her the truth? I mean hell, he could end up giving his wife an STD. Why can’t he record a video in a public place and post it on the internet?

I do agree that he will eventually go the way of the “Cheaters” guy and get stabbed or worse.[/quote]

We seem to agree on a lot of points. And, no I don’t think the dude catching the bj was “hard up”. Yes, I just wrote that. Maybe you’re right. Maybe this guy is doing noble work and his vids will deter others from getting hookers on the streetsof Oklahoma. What I’m saying is no one in this scenario is innocent. Not the hooker, not the trick, and certainly not the reporter.[/quote]

“There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit”

No, I don’t think the “reporter” is noble. But he isn’t doing anything wrong or immoral and the old guy isn’t a victim in the least.[/quote]

I don’t think the old man is a victim. That’s why I wrote he has to live with the consequences of the choices he makes. I do think the reporter is a douchebag though.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Lol, so the guy with the camera really didn’t go to the park for the purpose of video taping these people and broadcasting it, wasn’t really holding a camera, didn’t really point a camera into someone’s vehicle. So, he is totally blameless. No, if someone is drunk and naked you don’t go around telling everyone he is drunk and naked, you cover him up. Sure you can have a talk with him about his behavior, but you don’t embarrass him. You should really go to Sunday school sometime.

The man created a scandal, the journalist published a scandal. The journalist is just as much at fault for creating the scandal because he published it. Sorry, you’re wrong about this.

27

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant.[/quote]

Perhaps you are right. She chose to suck him off and get paid in the process, however, don’t you think it’s sad that she saw no other way out of her situation? She was homeless, so this can be assumed.

That’s why it is ‘preying’ on her. It is an abuse of somebody else’s desperation.

edit: and about the panhandling; maybe she was panhandling where the old guy picked her up. You never know.
[/quote]

No way out and the easy way out are two entirely different things.

28

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Dude, panhandling is legal in Oklahoma [I believe]. She could sit on the corner with a cup and a sign and make that $20 in an hour. She chose to suck that dude off, and get paid in the process. I do agree that the people making the choices - whatever they may be - need to be prepared to live with the consequences of those choices, but don’t act like that old man was “preying on her”. She was a willing participant. And, the other posters are right. That dude needs to mind his own business. Not sure how he hasn’t gotten the piss beat out of him yet, or worse.[/quote]

Never said it was illegal. What I said was, what the guy did was immoral. If there are personal consequences for people knowing what he does (while in public), those consequences are entirely his fault and no one elses. I also notice that you didn’t call BS when this line of argument started and the other poster referred to the old guy as the “hard up” person. HE chose to pick up the girl, take her to the park, pay her to suck his dick. He chose the risk. No one did any of that to him.

Hell, doesn’t the wife have a right to know? Why can’t the guy call the dudes wife and tell her the truth? I mean hell, he could end up giving his wife an STD. Why can’t he record a video in a public place and post it on the internet?

I do agree that he will eventually go the way of the “Cheaters” guy and get stabbed or worse.[/quote]

We seem to agree on a lot of points. And, no I don’t think the dude catching the bj was “hard up”. Yes, I just wrote that. Maybe you’re right. Maybe this guy is doing noble work and his vids will deter others from getting hookers on the streetsof Oklahoma. What I’m saying is no one in this scenario is innocent. Not the hooker, not the trick, and certainly not the reporter.[/quote]

“There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit”

No, I don’t think the “reporter” is noble. But he isn’t doing anything wrong or immoral and the old guy isn’t a victim in the least.[/quote]

He is doing something immoral, he is creating scandal. Just like those filthy tabloids are immoral for creating scandal. It’s like being a tattle-tail, shut the fuck up and stop snitching.

29

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

I don’t think the old man is a victim. That’s why I wrote he has to live with the consequences of the choices he makes. I do think the reporter is a douchebag though.[/quote]

Probably. but is being a douchebag immoral?

He is selling a product, the same thing everyone on this planet does for a living.

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

I don’t think the old man is a victim. That’s why I wrote he has to live with the consequences of the choices he makes. I do think the reporter is a douchebag though.[/quote]

Probably. but is being a douchebag immoral?

He is selling a product, the same thing everyone on this planet does for a living.[/quote]

So what makes him exploiting the guy for getting the hooker any different than being the hooker? They’re both selling their “product”.

31

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Lol, so the guy with the camera really didn’t go to the park for the purpose of video taping these people and broadcasting it, wasn’t really holding a camera, didn’t really point a camera into someone’s vehicle. So, he is totally blameless. No, if someone is drunk and naked you don’t go around telling everyone he is drunk and naked, you cover him up. Sure you can have a talk with him about his behavior, but you don’t embarrass him. You should really go to Sunday school sometime.

The man created a scandal, the journalist published a scandal. The journalist is just as much at fault for creating the scandal because he published it. Sorry, you’re wrong about this.[/quote]

NO… the journalist reported a happening. He did not ask those people to engage in a criminal behavior for him to video. His video did not promote others to go out and commit a crime in the hopes they would be videoed and become famous.

logic fail

32

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

I don’t think the old man is a victim. That’s why I wrote he has to live with the consequences of the choices he makes. I do think the reporter is a douchebag though.[/quote]

Probably. but is being a douchebag immoral?

He is selling a product, the same thing everyone on this planet does for a living.[/quote]

So what makes him exploiting the guy for getting the hooker any different than being the hooker? They’re both selling their “product”.[/quote]

No, the journalist is trying to STOP the crime. The old man and the hooker are hoping to continue their crime.

33

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Lol, so the guy with the camera really didn’t go to the park for the purpose of video taping these people and broadcasting it, wasn’t really holding a camera, didn’t really point a camera into someone’s vehicle. So, he is totally blameless. No, if someone is drunk and naked you don’t go around telling everyone he is drunk and naked, you cover him up. Sure you can have a talk with him about his behavior, but you don’t embarrass him. You should really go to Sunday school sometime.

The man created a scandal, the journalist published a scandal. The journalist is just as much at fault for creating the scandal because he published it. Sorry, you’re wrong about this.[/quote]

NO… the journalist reported a happening. He did not ask those people to engage in a criminal behavior for him to video. His video did not promote others to go out and commit a crime in the hopes they would be videoed and become famous.

logic fail
[/quote]

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?

34

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

He is doing something immoral, he is creating scandal. Just like those filthy tabloids are immoral for creating scandal. It’s like being a tattle-tail, shut the fuck up and stop snitching.[/quote]

The scandal is created by the actions, not the recording. Period. The fact that X wouldn’t exist without Y doesn’t make Y the cause of X. This is bad reasoning.

For example, the civil war wouldn’t have happened without black people. By your reasoning blacks created the civil war. WRONG.

Rules about snitching were made up by people who want to get away with things. The wife has the right to know. Period. If I saw your wife cheating on you, would you be okay with me not being a “tattle-tail” and go on letting her get away with it?

The guy doing things in a public park doesn’t have the right to keep them a secrete.

35

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Lol, so the guy with the camera really didn’t go to the park for the purpose of video taping these people and broadcasting it, wasn’t really holding a camera, didn’t really point a camera into someone’s vehicle. So, he is totally blameless. No, if someone is drunk and naked you don’t go around telling everyone he is drunk and naked, you cover him up. Sure you can have a talk with him about his behavior, but you don’t embarrass him. You should really go to Sunday school sometime.

The man created a scandal, the journalist published a scandal. The journalist is just as much at fault for creating the scandal because he published it. Sorry, you’re wrong about this.[/quote]

NO… the journalist reported a happening. He did not ask those people to engage in a criminal behavior for him to video. His video did not promote others to go out and commit a crime in the hopes they would be videoed and become famous.

logic fail
[/quote]

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?[/quote]

Is that really a question for you? come on, I have read your posts before.

Entrapment would be if the journalist hired a hooker to go out and solicit sex.

The journalist is exposing illegal activities in his community. If nothing else he is warning perpetrators that they can get caught.

36

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

No way out and the easy way out are two entirely different things.[/quote]

Desperate people do desperate things. It is entirely possible that seemed like the only way out to her at the time. It would be all too easy for an external set of eyes to say it was the easy way out.

37

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
I have a problem with this guy showing this on TV.

  1. His wife or someones wife could be terminally ill and who could blame a guy for getting some relief. He still has needs. He just needs to be discrete. Yeah he could rub one out but sometimes just paying for a quicky is all you need.

  2. His profession could be wrecked by this broadcasting on TV. Nothing like seeing your reputation going down the tubes. All for ratings. I smell lawsuit.

If this guy doing this show was sooooooooo adamant about stamping out this stuff he would be helping besides using shock drama reporting to get this removed from where he is. This guy is just as bad for getting rich/famous for doing this show. Actually he is worst cause he is being a parasite off of societies hard up people.
[/quote]

Bull shit. The guy with the camera isn’t doing anything but recording the guy IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN PLAY. Any negative consequences are due to the old guys actions. Period.

I’ve never understood how some people blame others for getting them caught, when they are the ones doing the bad thing.

The only one praying on “hard up” people is the old guy getting the homeless girl to suck his dick for a 20.[/quote]

No one forced the girl to take the $20 or to suck his dick. And, did he get this lo lo where children could see, or were they way off in the background completely unaware of what went down? There are a lot of things wrong with this entire situation, chief of which being the douchebag journalist exploiting everybody for his benefit.[/quote]

You can immorally prey on people without using force. Getting a girl to suck your dick as an alternative to going hungry is wrong. Period.

And like I said, he can only exploit people who do thinks in the public eye they don’t want to know about. The only one fucking up these people’s lives are the people themselves.[/quote]

Lol, so the guy with the camera really didn’t go to the park for the purpose of video taping these people and broadcasting it, wasn’t really holding a camera, didn’t really point a camera into someone’s vehicle. So, he is totally blameless. No, if someone is drunk and naked you don’t go around telling everyone he is drunk and naked, you cover him up. Sure you can have a talk with him about his behavior, but you don’t embarrass him. You should really go to Sunday school sometime.

The man created a scandal, the journalist published a scandal. The journalist is just as much at fault for creating the scandal because he published it. Sorry, you’re wrong about this.[/quote]

NO… the journalist reported a happening. He did not ask those people to engage in a criminal behavior for him to video. His video did not promote others to go out and commit a crime in the hopes they would be videoed and become famous.

logic fail
[/quote]

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?[/quote]

No, entrapment is the inducement of a crime.

What if that location is your neighborhood?

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?[/quote]

No, entrapment is the inducement of a crime.

What if that location is your neighborhood?[/quote]

Honestly man, I’d have to think about it. As of right now I’m saying I’d mind my own business. But, I don’t have kids or a family. If I did things would probably be different.

39

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?[/quote]

Is that really a question for you? come on, I have read your posts before.

Entrapment would be if the journalist hired a hooker to go out and solicit sex.

The journalist is exposing illegal activities in his community. If nothing else he is warning perpetrators that they can get caught.

[/quote]

Fair enough. I still think he’s a douchebag operating under a guise.

40

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Honest question: isn’t going somewhere that is known for illegal activity and recording said activity for the purpose of financial gain a form of entrapment?[/quote]

No, entrapment is the inducement of a crime.

What if that location is your neighborhood?[/quote]

Honestly man, I’d have to think about it. As of right now I’m saying I’d mind my own business. But, I don’t have kids or a family. If I did things would probably be different.
[/quote]

I’m getting married this weekend and I’d say that if someone knew my almost wife was doing something similar and chose not to tell me, that would be immoral.