Robert Kraft busted in human trafficking prostitution sting

[Legacy User]

This whole sting is complete horseshit and is another stain on law enforcement.

[R_S]

I dunno. There is a lot of extrapolation going on in this thread. Every other week an Asian rub and tug is getting busted in most towns. Hell I remember as a kid an undercover cop busted a place in Altoona and actually got a BJ before making the arrests. It made it into Playboy magazine. Rub and tugs thrive at truck stops and in wealthy areas of DC.

Could this be simply a bust just like all the others?

My guess is yes. Even rich guys stop into these places over lunch for a massage. So the whole, he should be uusing high end escorts doesn't really hold water. He could do both.

The conspiracy theorists are funny. Most things are usually as they seem. Pretty simple.

I just stopped in to wag my finger and gloat also...

[COR-TEN]

So yes. You do in fact have reading comprehension issues. Or you're just more interested in proving someone you disagree with as being wrong. No matter how flimsy the data. I'll go with the later, but it's just as idiotic as the former.

[zeke5123]

So yes. You do in fact have reading comprehension issues. Or you're just more interested in proving someone you disagree with as being wrong. No matter how flimsy the data. I'll go with the later, but it's just as idiotic as the former.

Let's see

the-other-burg wrote:
I hate the pats. But sign me up for the camp of who the fuck cares.

Dude banged a hooker.. big fucking deal.

The moral outrage of modern society never ceases to amaze me.
So I guess you're ok with the trafficking part, or the underage girls?

the-other-burg wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
the-other-burg wrote:
I hate the pats. But sign me up for the camp of who the fuck cares.

Dude banged a hooker.. big fucking deal.

The moral outrage of modern society never ceases to amaze me.
So I guess you're ok with the trafficking part, or the underage girls?


Holy fuck here comes the pc police....

Did i say I was ok with sex trafficking of underage girls? Jesus. Are you looking for an excuse to claim moral outrage?

Story says he went to a massage parlor and probably got a hand job. My comment was in regards to Kraft.
Ha. That's funny. Probably. Maybe. I guess it's still ok if he got a hand job from some asian girl that was trafficked for sex work. I mean, how was Kraft to know she was underage? Give the guy a break, will ya?

the-other-burg wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
Ha. That's funny. Probably. Maybe. I guess it's still ok if he got a hand job from some asian girl that was trafficked for sex work. I mean, how was Kraft to know she was underage? Give the guy a break, will ya?


You know what? If some old dude went to an asian massage parlor and got caught up in a sting, well that sucks for him. But these places have been around for a long time. And old dudes have been going to them for a long time. And I guess people dont think they are partaking in sex trafficking with these places- because in most cases they probably arent.

So we can all agree to be outraged over sex trafficking. But I will withold judgement before i call Kraft a supporter of it.

And slow you’re roll before you come out and accuse me of supporting it as well.
Fair enough. But I wasn't condoning bringing out the torches and pitchforks for Kraft. And slow your roll of accusing me of being the pc police. Whores have been around for a while. It's why they call it the oldest "profession." If Kraft simply got a hand job. Big deal. But it would be naive to think there isn't something else going on that he didn't know about. Like Jeff Epstien. And either way, it's a PR nightmare for him.

Bolded parts are Cor-Ten

First, some of your posts (see above) are without qualifers which commonly suggests that you were making a claim. So, first maybe calm down on the reading comp questions since uh...appears not to be your strong suit. After you were called out, you chicken shit retreated to saying that you said "if" though you never did. But said everything in a manner to suggest the "if" was merely perfunctory.

Second, my whole point (before there was any known evidence one way or the other) was that (i) since the press were relying on the police and (ii) the police routinely mischaracterize prostitution as trafficking, then (iii) it is reasonable to be doubtful of the published accounts because we know the source of said accounts are highly unreliable in this area. That basic logic allowed me to predict what actually occurred despite having the same evidence as you -- basic induction.

Retorting that you were just discussing what the media was discussing (in a rather uncritical way -- see the above quotes) means you didn't really understand the dynamic behind cops and trafficking. If a random source that was proven unreliable stated that Cor-ten was a pedo, and I started castigating posters for supporting Cor-ten and then afterwards half-heartedly qualified my claim that Cor-ten is a pedo with the word "if," it would be fair to expect an apology when Cor-ten was proven not to be a pedo. Same point here.

[Legacy User]

I hope someone wins this internet battle before my popcorn runs out

[Legacy User]

Believing obviously bullshit law enforcement statements at face value is not an excuse, especially from someone who claims to be liberal.

Law enforcement initially claimed it was human trafficking, then told us in righteous tones that they then proceeded to film the slaves for the next few months to gather evidence.

Anyone with basic common sense can identify the problem here, as a few of us did at the beginning.

This is not only a lie by law enforcement, it's a Fredo Corleone lie. Doubly insulting because they think you are stupid enough to believe it.

But some holier than thou non-thinking types here decided to pile on and smear the skeptics with the charge of being supportive of child molestation, even though no one ever presented evidence of underage sex trafficking.

Now we have spa clients including women who didn't have an erotic massage suing for privacy violations.

So it wasn't actually obvious at all that this was a rub and tug place or a front for human trafficking.

As some of us said.

And now law enforcement, says, oh never mind, there was never any sex trafficking.

So please tell me why law enforcement are not the real criminals here?

[Legacy User]

[quote="Dan Smith--BYU"]Believing obviously bullshit law enforcement statements at face value is not an excuse, especially from someone who claims to be liberal./quote]

You ever read anything by Don Hoffman? He claims that fitness is distinct from truth and natural selection only selects for fitness. So we have evolved for fitness, not grasping anything about the true nature of reality.

[Legacy User]

I haven't read the man but it makes perfect sense.

If you're in Salem during the witch hunt, joining the hysterical mob makes more sense from an evolutionary psychology standpoint and survival standpoint than being objective.

Which is why due process and rules of evidence is such genius. Human nature and the herd instinct must be checked.

[Legacy User]

BTW, I'm extremely skeptical about the arrest of Assange. The media keeps asserting collusion with Russia and he's not being charged with that. What he actually did is the same thing the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers which is completely legal. If printing leaked information is illegal, shut down the Times and the Post right now.

[Legacy User]

I haven't read the man but it makes perfect sense.

If you're in Salem during the witch hunt, joining the hysterical mob makes more sense from an evolutionary psychology standpoint and survival standpoint than being objective.

Which is why due process and rules of evidence is such genius. Human nature and the herd instinct must be checked.

Do you have a time and date for the witch hunt?

Dinner, movies and a walk is monotonous....

Looking for something different

[955876]

BTW, I'm extremely skeptical about the arrest of Assange. The media keeps asserting collusion with Russia and he's not being charged with that. What he actually did is the same thing the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers which is completely legal. If printing leaked information is illegal, shut down the Times and the Post right now.

If the shoe was on the other foot he’d be viewed as a hero.

Kinda like Mueller was until all of a sudden he wasn’t.

[Legacy User]

Oh, are we allowed to talk politics now, B2B?

[Gonzo]

Sort of like Assange was a security issue until it suited that he wasn’t.
There is a difference between posting/printing stolen classified information or personal data, soliciting stolen classified information or personal data and participating in the theft of personal data or classified information.

The current debate is purposely obfuscated and populated by a million straw men and intentionally false arguments

Sound familiar

[955876]

This has lingered on main page for a while now. Better to just move to general...

[Kodiak]

Sort of like Assange was a security issue until it suited that he wasn’t.

Point of clarification - he's been charged with aiding Manning in the theft and transmission of the data. It is not a crime for the press to publish stolen information. It IS a crime if the reporter conspires to steal data (and "conspire" is a word that is going to be mentioned 10,000X tomorrow morning).


Also, I will admit to being suckered on this story. We all really should be more skeptical of everything we see in the news these days. I put a lot of confidence in what the police said, not knowing how liberally and loosely "trafficking" was being used. It just didn't make any sense (still doesn't, honestly) to me why someone of Kraft's profile and wealth would ever risk getting caught in a rub-n-tug joint.

[Legacy User]

Is there really any legitimate public purpose to show Kraft getting a hand job or, for that matter, Aunt Becky going to the pokey for more than a month (I'm fine with fines and a little jail, but the people who took the money need to be punished more)? These are not dangerous menaces to society.

Meanwhile in California, actual violent felons are released out of prisons and the new defendants don't post bail. And less than a 900 dollar burglary is a misdemeanor.

We've become the townspeople in Shirley Jackson's Lottery who can't keep our eyes on actual threats.

[Kodiak]

Is there really any legitimate public purpose to show Kraft getting a hand job or, for that matter, Aunt Becky going to the pokey for more than a month ...

The Kraft video is up there with the Jussie Smollet crap. It's wrong, and disturbing that law enforcement is attempting to litigate in the court of public opinion.

What Aunt Becky did is fairly despicable. Now, perhaps it's no worse than bullshit legacy and questionable diversity policies. But let's all just agree that bribery is wrong, and has no place anywhere in our society.

[Legacy User]

Social media is reviving Trial by Ordeal.

This isn't just limited to crimes, look at the bullshit Ben is having to defend. How do you prove you weren't a racist in 2010? It's all based on Mendenhall Glacier's feelings. Look at the crap Aziz Azari and Chris Hardwick went through based on unhinged personality disordered Twitter losers.

AOC has no fucking business commenting on Felicity Huffman considering her own financial corruption accusations.

To be clear, she should be charged and convicted on evidence, but she is not a menace to society and anything more than a month is ridiculous.

[Legacy User]

So now the Jupiter pigs have leaked the video in violation of a judicial order.

Kraft just got a lot wealthier.

I hate using the term pigs, but it applies in this case.

[Legacy User]

Dan Smith--BYU:

You are flat out wrong about burglaries in California. Residential burglary is always a felony with a sentence up to 6 years, which can be doubled if the defendant has one strike. Burglary of a commercial enclosure can be either a felony or misdemeanor depending on a prosecutor's view or listed factors (none of which involve your $900).

What you seem to be talking about is the shoplifting stature, which makes it a crime to enter a commercial establishment during business hours with intent to steal $950 or less. This can carry a sentence of 1 year. Of course if any theft takes place, that can be charged too (Just as with burglary: if there are additional crimes, such as theft, malicious mischief, assault, etc., those can be charged too.)

So your argument amounts to this: We are going to hell in a handbag because the state can only put a defendant in jail for 1 year for entering a Walmart with the unrealized intent to steal a set of screw drivers but federal prosecutors are threatening our very liberty by being able to seek a prison term of more than one month for what amounts to the actual theft of services with corrupt intent and bribery in the amount of half a million dollars.

I realize in your world things like fraud, insider trading, self-dealing, tax evasion are all relatively minor peccadilloes that merit nothing more than a couple of weeks' loss of country club privileges (if that). But claiming that California under imprisons criminals is really a bad way of making that argument.

.

[955876]

Ummmm Stainless, you might want to do some further reading up on Prop 47 as it is far more than simply a “shoplifting statute”.

It decriminalized theft, forgery, fraud, receiving stolen property, drug use & possession among other things.

Smash & grabs have skyrocketed in places like SF. As has burglary, shoplifting, drug use, and drug sales. People shoot up in the streets and leave their dirty infected needles laying about.

And dont come back saying crime rates have not risen. They have. A lot.

These crimes now often go unreported as people know they will go unpunished. If they can get a police officer out at all. Why bother when it was just your purse with $600 in it and some credit cards.

Or your packages? Or bicycle? Or laptop?

What’s the point of calling the police over the two guys that just shot up with heroin and are now passed out outside your apartment? What are the police going to do?

Just make sure your kiddos have on decent shoes in case they step on one of those dirty needles.

Very ironic how the bill was originally dubbed the “safe neighborhoods and schools act”.

Safe for those to now live a life of crime without repercussion is more like it.

Just keep it under $950 a day and you be A-ok...

[Legacy User]

955876:
I understand there is a difference between internet arguments which you are playing (rules: anything goes, strawman is the preferred arguement style, evidence irrelevant) and legal analysis. But let's give this a go on the latter terms:

My post was to point was that Dan Smith's assertion that burglary in California is now a misdemeanor was wrong. You don't deny that. Instead, in a patronizing way (typical of internet arguments), you say that I should consider the referendum that was voted on to see that it included other thin gs than the ADDITION to (not subtraction from) the burglary statute. Then you go on to show how society has gone to hell in a hand basket apparently because this referendum did not solve all crime in San Fransisco as all right=minded citezens evidently thought it would.

Let's go to the enacted statutes (to paraphrase Warner Wolf).

Assuming that Dan Smith was not just making things up about burglary, I looked at the statute and found a provision that was similar to what he was claiming. It was an amendment to the burglary statute which EXPANDED it. Burglary rquires an unlawful entry. This expansion applies to lawful entry of a business: that is, entry during business hours with the intent to commit a petty larceny (which is a defined term in the Penal Code, not a moral judgment on the nature of the offense). Here it is in full:

"Section 459.5 [of California Penal Code, Part of the Sections on Burglary: Sections 458–464].
(a) Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950). Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary. Shoplifting shall be punished as a misdemeanor, except that a person with one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 may be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170."

Far from making burglary a misdemeanor if it involves less than $950 (or $900 as Dan Smith said), it increases the penalties for what is normally called "shoplifting." The unlawful entry into a residence with the intent to commit crimes, including petty larceny, is still a felony. And the unlawful entry into a commercial space with intent to commit a crime may be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on a number of factors listed, which a prosecutor decides in charging. This applies to the LAWFUL entry into a business.

Now how does anything I said, or indeed what Dan Smith said, have anything to do with the dystopia you paint? I appreciate your recommendation that I expand the discussion to issues of the social state of San Francisco and how the entire problem remains unsolved by a referendum, but I will decline because it will get this tread removed and I suspect it would in any event lead to more internet style argument style, which might be gratifying to you, but that was not my purpose.

I might, however, suggest to you, in return for your generous suggestion of how I might better inform myself about things I wasn't discussing, that if you want to enter a legal discussion, you might want to inform yourself of the laws being discussed.

[Drummer Boy]

I might, however, suggest to you, in return for your generous suggestion of how I might better inform myself about things I wasn't discussing, that if you want to enter a legal discussion, you might want to inform yourself of the laws being discussed.

Sweet.

[955876]

Smith was referring to the decriminalization of crime in CA in general. I think you are taking the word “burglary” too literally. Your response to him seemed to imply that is not what has taken place when you said he was “flat out wrong about burglary in CA”.

Maybe I misunderstood you but it seemed you were saying he was wrong about something he wasn’t wrong about. Theft, stealing, ripping someone off, taking something that isn’t yours whatever you want to call it has been decriminalized here. Cops don’t bother with “petty misdemeanor” offenses. Particularly in the city.

Anything I said not true?

You are free to rob, steal, forge checks, deal & shoot up your drugs.

This isn’t a strawman, it’s CA policy.

Come to our state. Steal from its residents. Just be sure not to take more than $950 and you are in the clear.

What I’m saying isn’t false.

Really not sure what point or ground you are trying to stand on here.

Was theft decriminalized or not?

That is what he was talking about and that is what I commented on.

[955876]

My post was to point was that Dan Smith's assertion that burglary in California is now a misdemeanor was wrong. You don't deny that.

Ummm but am denying that.

Theft of property less than $950 is now a misdemeanor which means police often will not bother with it.

And if they do what is the point? An hour in jail and a fine they likely won’t pay.

What is it that you are missing here or trying to argue?