TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

larcenousTactician Archive

View 0 posts and 16 comments by larcenousTactician on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

After looking it up it appears laws in the US have changed and it USED to be. Also, you sound like a douche saying PROVE IT. If you want to tell someone they are wrong just google it and tell them.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:05 PM
5

It is, but it isn't something that people actually get punished for. It is so police can intervene if someone is trying. Standing on the edge of a building and whatnot
/r/MensRights08/09/14 01:07 PM
1

Oh I know it isn't legally entrapment, but morally it is the same thing. And yeah, definitely, I agree, but the moral implications are still important, as is the fact that most people think things like that are okay, because they regard pedophiles as guilty, or worthy of punishment, simply be definition.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:03 AM
1

I think the more important question is, would they have, on their own, pushed for an in-person meeting? Or did the person posing as the child invite them, and encourage them? I agree that it is still in ones power to resist, and do the right thing, but manipulating a person with a mental disorder also is not okay. The responsibility lies with both parties.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 11:56 PM
3

Its willful manipulation of someone with a mental disorder to coax them toward a crime that their disorder already predisposes them toward. If that isn't morally wrong, I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 11:48 PM
2

Right, but when sting operations are set up with police posing as children, they are convincing a person who otherwise would likely never go beyond their own fantasies to act on them. They are creating an artificial situation, and pushing them toward a behavior, then punishing them for it. Even worse, they are pushing a person with a mental disorder toward a behavior that their disorder already pushes them toward, then punishing them for it.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:12 AM
5

I don't, sorry. I don't really keep up to date on the issue, I just had a class somewhat recently where I was the only one who thought that things like "To Catch a Predator" were morally and legally wrong. Its entrapment. They lure someone into planning a crime, then bust them for it.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:42 PM
1

My mistake. I read the article wrong.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:39 PM
1

My mistake, I read the definition wrong. Just looked over it again
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:38 PM
14

I really don't see why they do it. It basically comes down to the assertion that sexual attraction to children is, in itself, a prosecutable offense. No one chooses what they find arousing. A gay man doesn't choose to be attracted to men, he just is. By the same token, a person who is attracted to children does not choose this attraction. The usual clientele of online chatrooms where these operations take place are almost definitely usually just adults roleplaying, which harms no one and allows …
/r/MensRights25/03/14 04:58 PM
2

After looking into it more, I found that manslaughter was available to the jury. Among the jury instructions was a section on justifiable use of deadly force, which is what the jury went with.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 06:09 PM
1

Self defense laws required that he fear that his situation would lead to death or severe injury. Being pinned down and beaten qualifies, as you are at the mercy of the attacker. He had no way of knowing how far Martin would take it, and had no ability to retreat.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:20 AM
1

Voluntary manslaughter flies in the face of everything that the prosecution argued throughout the trial. They argued that it was not something that happened in the moment, and that he followed the teen with intent to start an altercation, or become violent. For voluntary manslaughter, the jury would need to be convinced that Zimmerman intended to harm Martin before the altercation took place, which doesn't mesh with their own case in which they said "The defendant didn't shoot Trayvon Martin bec…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 02:17 AM
3

Murder requires that the defendant acted intentionally. Manslaughter requires it be accidental, or unintentional. The prosecution requested that manslaughter be included as a lesser included offense for the jury to consider, the defense raised an objection on the grounds that Zimmerman did intend to reach for and fire his gun, and was protected under self defense laws. Lesser included crimes cannot require proof of an element not included in the greater crime to be considered. The two crimes tha…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:35 PM
10

It doesn't matter if he "picked a fight." He was tried for second degree murder. They had NO WHERE NEAR enough evidence to prove second degree murder. If they had tried for manslaughter, they might have got a conviction. Did you watch any part of the trial? Even if they had got a guilty verdict, the defense could successfully gone for a mistrial, due to the prosecution keeping evidence from them.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:40 PM
5

SRS's strawman construction brigade is on the job
/r/MensRights28/07/13 12:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter