Discussion about this post

User's avatar
remindful's avatar

I think your characterization of Smith's indifference to the sting operation is a bit innacurate. Just after the advertisement you commented on, they mention how the difference between sting and entrapment operations are bllurry but "they've long since won out in the courts to do that...Whether that should be right or not, they run these entrapment operations all the time..." then discuss the overeach on similar war on terror operations, and To Catch a Predator probably setting up situations that would never otherwise happen.

While I appreciate and agree with your opposition to the assault on civil liberties and overempowerment of law enforcement agencies, to my ears Smith's main interest in this story is that Alexandrovich was arrested and then fled to Israel on bail, with the expectation that he's not intending on coming back for a trial.

At least thats my main interest in this, especially given his significant position in the Israeli National Cyber Directorate and him saying to NV police that he met FBI members and had a meeting with NSA scheduled. Doesn't Alexandrovich fit the profile of a classic flight risk and letting him leave is severe negligence at best? And given Israel previously claimed he was never the subject of arrest and he clearly was, the story is still intriguing regardless of the associated hysteria or legitimacy/effectiveness of pedo sting operations.

Expand full comment
BeauregardIV's avatar

Michael, I’m generally a fan of your writing and appreciate what I call your principled skepticism. But seriously dude you need to study “entrapment” as a legal defense because you seem to suggest that people making arrangements for amorous encounters with minors on the internet are ‘entrapped’ because of the internet platform’s terms of service.

Here is the California Jury Instruction defining ‘entrapment’ in criminal cases (I could not find Nevada’s). This definition of entrapment, which has survived all sorts of appellate court scrutiny, is a pretty straightforward and reasonable and not close to the definition you seem to suggest is or should be the law of the land.

If a 30+ year old individual is on the internet chatting about amorous conduct with someone else and receives ANY hint or clue that the person he or she is chatting with is a minor the conversation should END. If one party to the conversation starts complaining about over productive parents or drama around her locker, the conversation should END.

It is a grown adult’s duty to make certain that anyone he or she is initiating amorous contact with or planning for amorous contact with is an adult. Terms of service don’t come close to excusing an adult from exercising that duty.

In the declaration accompanying Mr. Alexdrovich’s arrest states the task force’s investigating detective states the OCE (or decoy) “was acting like a 15 year old” & that the conversation was recorded. I hope that conversation is released in full. I hope you understand the legal definition of entrapment and can see just how far off from it you are in this article.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3408/

Expand full comment
90 more comments...

No posts