By now, you'd think that pervy dudes would realize that the 14-year-old girls that they're trying to sex on the Internet are really handlebar mustachioed cops (or something like that). Have we learned nothing from Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator? Guess not.
The feds nailed Samuel P. Logan, 45, a partner at big-ass Overland Park law firm Foulston Siefkin, for allegedly trying to get a 14-year-old girl to have sex with him this past May. And here's why I hope the cops on this case are getting hazard pay and counseling: They claim Logan busted out the web cam and started whacking off in a video chat with an undercover investigator.
The press release announcing the charges also notes that the images
showed Logan in an office with framed diplomas and certificates visible
behind him. Gotta feel for the cleaning crew on this one. Logan also is
accused of sending adult and child porn to the undercover officer for
nearly two months (from June 1 to July 22).
Logan is charged with trying to get an undercover cop
minor to have sex and sending and receiving child porn.
If convicted (and this is a jury you're going to want to avoid), Logan
faces 10 to life and a fine of up to $250,000 for the enticement charge
and five to 20 years and another fine for the pictures charge.
The Star
reported that his request for bond was denied on Friday even
though he was "a prominent lawyer and son of a retired appeals court
judge." Oh, the injustice of it all.
Sounds like the judge had good reason.
With sex toys and pornography in his car, he wentto Oak Park Mall and approached a 14-year-old girl who looked like the
one he thought he was corresponding with online, prosecutors said. In
reality, prosecutors said, he had been corresponding with undercover
officers.
Creepy.
Photo via Kansas City Mugshots.
Showing 1-8 of 8
I haven't said that anything he did was okay. It's not, none of it. But, just because something isn't okay, it doesn't mean it's against the law. Whacking off on a camera for a minor should be illegal if it isn't. Prosecute for that. But, life in jail for not raping somebody? Doesn't make any sense.
If you want to fuck something young- get a sheep. So a guy offers a hooker $10.50 for a gummer but decides that her oral hygiene isn't quite ADA accepted backs out of slamming his rod into her face. If the law states that the second money changes hands constitutes solicitation, then he is breaking the law. By your logic, spewing man butter on a computer screen to a 14-year old is okay. That's not solicitation merely because he didn't touch her. 10-4 good buddy.
Oh yeah, he went to a mall to find her. He might have backed out or he might have snatched your child and banged his/her brains out. But nobody should have stopped him before he DID anything.
Retard.
You do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would have gone through with the rape. He could have clammed up at the last minute. My point isn't that this guy should be walking the streets and raping 14 year-olds. The point is that no one should rot in jail for the rest of their lives without breaking a law. Maybe he gets his rocks off by pursuing 14 year-olds and harassing them at the mall but then feels guilty once he gets them in his car and drops them off at their parents' house. Yes, this is 99.9% unlikely but that's not the rule of law. The rule of law is 100%. .1% is a shadow.
Prosecute him to the full extent of the law for the porn but the rest of it is entrapment. Maybe he would have never found a 14 year-old that would agree to meet him so he never would have broke the law.
Are you people fucking retarded? Do you mean to tell me that as soon as a guy offers a hooker a few bucks for a gummer that it is illegal but to try and find a child to rape is entrapment? Give me a fucking break. I've heard it all. Liberal pieces of shit looking for a way to free a pedophile. What would make this illegal and not entrapment? If he actually got his knob into a child? Is that what makes it a crime. After all, you are correct in that he hasn't done anything wrong- yet. But pulling the pud on camera in the belief that it is a minor on the other end is within the moral guidelines of common law- right?
So, based on the moronic theories posted here, it is only entrapment if he doesn't actually sodomize a child. As soon as he hides the salami- then he should be arrested. Fuck the innocent child at risk that he "might" ahve taken and cornholed. But we can't stop him until an actual crime has been committed.
I wish he would have spanked one off on your faces- you fucking idiots.
It seems to me that the police put the "real" young girl that he approached in danger by requesting or agreeing to meet him at that destination. Wouldn't that be another law suit for the parent of that young girl to bring against the police? I would! I bet these "cops" are getting their "thrill" (to put it mildly) in doing these "entrapments" and can't you just see all of them in the same room closely "examining" this porn? I hope to follow this case as I can't see a lawyer (especially with a powerful father) getting any fine nor jail time.
Not saying this guy isn't a disgusting pervert but isn't this entrapment? The real person is of legal age so even if he actually had sex with her (which he didn't), it would've been legal. Beyond the child porn thing (obviously convict him for that), he actually broke no laws. How do you get life for that?
So, if I tell an undercover cop that I'm going to kill someone, they could arrest me on the spot and prosecute me for murder?
Your Honor,
I'd like to represent myself in this case -on camera, with my cock in my hand and a 2-liter of Sprite in my ass.
What a f--king creep! He shows u at a mall looking for a girl......holy hell, this perv could have snatched any little kid and took off.
"According to your chat log.....'I like to ride bicycles without seats. Scooby Doo is my favorite actor. One time, at law camp, I shoved a KOh-I-Noor Rapidomatic 0.5 mm pencil in my ass that I used to redline legal documents. In the meantime, Barack Obama was going down on my other pencil.'"
like
dislike
