Split from Radio show thread: Ethics of the Chad Bait

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

GomerPyle wrote:

In the UK the police run very successful 'sting' operatons against thieves and and I have never ever heard any criminal ever attempt to assert that it was illegal because they were deceived.

@ Gomer

If a cop convinces a mobster to kill his boss, or assault him, or rob his home and the conversation is caught on tape, do you suppose that cop won't face some kind of disciplinary action or even prosecution?

Cops don't normally do that type of thing, but I've seen baiters do it here.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:08 pm

In order to find you guilty they first have to find you.

Another reason to bait safe.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:12 pm

I've never told a scammer to hurt another one.

However, to enable me to look after him in a manner that would ensure his complete safety from any peril I would require him to be honest and truthful with me.

I'm baiting a scammer, not adopting him - well not usually anyway.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

@ Titania

Agreed, but the statement was made that nothing illegal ever happens here. And while I'm generally an advocate for just about everything that goes on here, I think some members are fooling themselves into believing the courts would smile on their actions if it came down to it.

Saying that it's legal because the lad wouldn't report it, or it happens in another country, or whatever doesn't make it legal. Just because you never get prosecuted doesn't mean you never broke the law. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would be pretty skeptical about the statement that no laws are broken here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

I believe there have been cases in which a hate website was tried to be held legally responsible for inciting violence, and it was not able to come to fruition.
While I am not a lawyer, I don't believe that telling someone to do something equals legal responsibility, unless you are in a position of authority and the actor is acting under your order.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:18 pm

@capricio: You really think one would get convicted for saying (to anyone, let alone a thief) "there's $200,000 in Chad to pick up"? Come on .. you know better than that.

This topic has extended to 17 pages by now, and IMHO leading nowhere. I like a good discussion, but this seems useless, eating time we all could use to send our lads to the most beautiful places on earth. Have a ball, I'm sending a couple to WU now ..

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:18 pm

capricio wrote:

You provided motive and intent by deception.

Any Defence lawyer is going to say "Prove it".
And seriously, how can the prosecution prove that one? Even if they have access to the lad's PC and your PC, it still going to be impossible to prove intent. The defence would be that the bait just progressed that way.

Say the lad in Chad got blown away and by a miracle the law came after the baiters? The defence would be that there was just a natural progression due to the lad's greed.
If he had got shot, it would have been whilst he was in the process of trying to commit a crime. The onus would be on the lad. Not the baiter.

But I still can't stress the hypotheticals enough and what we do isn't "cyber-bullying". We bait criminals. There's a huge difference.

Saying that, the law has enough trouble prosecuting cyber-bullies - people who really do deserve to go to jail. In the US, when 13-year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber-bulied by 47 year old Lori Drew, the law had to go after her with the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) , a law most commonly used to prosecute computer hackers who steal sensitive information stored on databases or corrupt computer systems. In the UK, a 17 year old cyber-bullied a 16 year old into committing suicide and the only thing he could be charged with was "Harrassment".

As far as I know, there is nothing in any legal code that a baiter could be charged under. Certainly not with what we do here anyway.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:23 pm

I have never told a lad to harm himself or other scammers, I just merely set up the stage for the possibility he'll do something stupid out of greed. If he ends up dead in a desert somewhere, it's ultimately his fault. Not to get political here, but I'm considered to be fairly liberal by alot of people I know. However, I feel absolutely no sympathy for any of these lads. I believe in free will and responsibility. In the end, whatever happens to them is their fault because they had the choice to do it or not to do it.

I'm a big fan of irony, this bait was the perfect example of that.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:26 pm

I looked up a case of a scammer who committed many frauds and crimes in the USA for which his accomplices received jail sentences while he escaped to Nigeria. His arrest warrant includes the attempted murder of an FBI agent, and he has not been extradited yet, and that was for a crime committed on American soil and the evidence appears to be pretty incontrovertible.

Your case is weak hypothetically - and in reality it is just windblown dust.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

GomerPyle wrote:

I've never told a scammer to hurt another one.

@ Dutchbait

If you guys are bored with this, that's cool, just move along. Smile

@ Gomer

I know, i know... hypothetical again, but lets suppose:

Shorty performed a B&E on the house you convinced him Ludmilla was in (which I think you will admit was your intent). Shorty threatens the homeowner and starts jibbering about Ludmilla and threatening him to 'fess up. Homeowner shoots Shorty dead.

Good riddance and all of that, but you did convince him that a woman was in mortal danger and he dies trying to save her (and more likely the alleged lockbox). We all agree that Shorty and the homeowner are largely responsible for his death, but would a court find you free and clear?

Please no more arguments of "I won't get prosecuted because of XYZ technicality, so it's perfectly legal". What does your gut tell you a court would find with all the evidence in front of them?

Agreed most of the safaris are probably safe from prosecution, but recently there have been some baits focused on creating adversarial lad relationships under false pretenses, and efforts to get lads to invade each other's homes. These are putting baiters on legal thin ice, IMHO. But they are entertaining.... Twisted Evil

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:26 am

capricio wrote:

If a cop convinces a mobster to kill his boss, or assault him, or rob his home and the conversation is caught on tape, do you suppose that cop won't face some kind of disciplinary action or even prosecution?

Cops don't normally do that type of thing, but I've seen baiters do it here.

I do not subscribe to the whole "if it is unethical for a cop to do it then it's unethical for a scambaiter to do it". Nor do I find any ethical parity between what is the law, and what is ethical. For example, I consider euthanasia to be perfectly ethical despite it being illegal.

I don't see any ethical problem getting one lad to harm another. As evident from the case of Adamu, you can send a lad on a wild safari and they will come right back and go back to scamming.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:28 am

capricio wrote:

Please no more arguments of "I won't get prosecuted because of XYZ technicality, so it's perfectly legal". What does your gut tell you a court would find with all the evidence in front of them?

You've gone from one extreme to the other. First you wanted the letter of the law and now you're saying to disregard it and go on gut feeling.

Well OK. Since you asked, I reckon if it got as far as court, no jury in the land would convict on the basis you've outlined.

You keep saying we skate on thin ice. On what basis? What law is being broken? What can we be charged with? I could say that I think people with ginger hair should be prosecuted, but without offering an argument stating which law is broken and what they should be charged with, all I'm offering is an opinion based on my desires.
You're doing pretty much the same here.

It's OK saying a baiter may be prosecuted for XYZ but you've got to know if XYZ is actually a crime that can be prosecuted in the first place.

So in your scenario, what crime is the baiter committing? And I don't mean goading, cajoling or suggesting that someone gets hurt. What is the actual crime under the letter of the law?

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Capricio: I think you're enjoying playing devil's advocate and don't really care what our answers are. We've spent the day discussing whether or not we're lawless vigilantes. It seems you're choosing to push topics that you know we'll be defensive of, and regardless of our answers, simply continue to push. I'm all for intelligent discussion, but this has grown weary. Continue on if you'd like, but I'll bow out.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Ima,

Well some interesting points were made on both sides and it made my day go faster. I didn't see the debate as a waste of time. You're probably right about it running it's course, though. I didn't set out to annoy anyone, sorry if you found yourself annoyed. Smile

Slightly,

I've already told you I'm not a legal expert by any means. However, since you asked, "coersion" comes to mind:

"coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force. ."

The example of Ludmilla being held hostage could easily be construed as "moral force" to act.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:31 am

capricio wrote:

Ima,
I've already told you I'm not a legal expert by any means. However, since you asked, "coersion" comes to mind:

"coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force. ."

Coercion is a good place to start. But consider self-defense. When one acts in self-defense they deprive someone of the exercise of their free will. Yet self-defense is considered by most to be ethical, including me.

I do not think scambaiting is that different. We are defending others from the coercion of the scammers. And we just differ on what levels of coercion are justified.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:47 am

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:49 am

capricio wrote:

However, since you asked, "coersion" comes to mind:

Our legal systems don't even protect our kids from internet coersion. Do you think they'll protect a scammer in Africa?

Do you think that West African nations have laws against internet coersion?

** SUSPENDED ** Joined: 21 Sep 2008 Posts: 1

Well, I think West African nations have bigger things to worry about.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:22 am

It should also be noted that the UK has no bilateral extradition treaty with any West African state. The US does have an extradition treaty with a couple of West African states but these were signed with Britain when the latter was the colonial power.

There is nothing in the US treaty that a baiter could be extradited for as it is so out-of-date as to be irrelevant. It was signed in 1935.

http://www.internationalextradition.com/nigeria_bi.htm

I can't find a single record for any US citizen being extradited to a West African nation. Extradition with the US is always a one way street.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:32 am

capricio wrote:

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would be pretty skeptical about the statement that no laws are broken here

capricio wrote:

Please approach it objectively, from a legal standpoint. Can you still tell me they wouldn't find you guilty of something?

I am a lawyer, and I do know that I am not committing any offences by baiting. I don't cash-bait, and I don't have the dishonesty required for deception or fraud offences in England & Wales. I don't safari lads into dangerous situations, but if I did, I still would not have committed an offence, thanks to lack of causation, the lad's consent in some instances and lack of the necessary intent on my part in others. Coercion has to operate at a much higher level than just the lad's greed overcoming his own sense of personal safety. And let's not even get started on the jurisdictional issues, which are hellishly complicated. Smile

capricio wrote:

I'm pretty sure a court would frown upon using deception to manipulate people, even criminals.

Police officers use deception to catch criminals frequently, and the court allows them to do so within certain limits. We are not subject to the same restraints, and even if we were, there is an important distinction to be made between us applying the trap to the lad, and the lad applying himself to the trap.

capricio wrote:

Saying that it's legal because the lad wouldn't report it, or it happens in another country, or whatever doesn't make it legal. Just because you never get prosecuted doesn't mean you never broke the law.

If the prosecution has no credible witness or other compelling evidence, they have no case. Getting the victim's evidence presented at court is usually an essential part of the case, and the lack thereof frequently means no case. The criminal law is predicated on the requirement for proof - it's called the presumption of innocence, and it is not some technicality or sophistry, it's a basic tenet of a civilised system of justice. Unless and until I am prosecuted and convicted, I have not broken the law.

I'm not going to get into a blow-by-blow account of all the legal issues here. If you really want to discuss it further, capricio, PM me, but please do not expect to (a) get any free legal advice or (b) change my mind. Laughing

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:54 am

Quote:

........by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force.

In my instance the scammer had complete choice, only his own desire to commit a criminal act drove him on. There was no threat involved, only his own desire to steal money.

You may say that a liar, thief and cheat has rights too. I would agree, but he is in serious trouble if he contemplates bringing any form of prosecution in the middle of him clothing himself in the aliases and guise of a scammer making it clear he believes himself to be perpetrating a fraud or scam.

The minute a scammer is clothed in his alias he is a scammer at work, and his claim to be an innocent victim is shattered. I even recall a UK TV show where valuables were left in places where it was known they would be stolen, and the thieves were set up to be pranked or humiliated. A lorry full of boxes turned into a cage which then paraded the thief through the streets with a loud hailer proclaiming his thievery/stupidiy, and a mountain bike that had been doctored to be unrideable and cars that locked the thief in and showered him with foam.

The principle of caveat scammer is founded in law, not in hypothetical ramblings.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:47 am

capricio wrote:

If baiters make scamming seem unproductive, their frustration will accumulate, and eventually they'll be forced to find honest work if they want to eat.

This might be true and can be used to justify straight baits and time wasting modalities. But it does not give you a reason for torture*) or humiliation. could keep them going down the path indefinately.

I guess it is a very moral act to interfere with a scammer's attempts to defraud people. Apart from that, a moral maze in the twilight zone begins and each and everyone of us has to find out his/her position. Threads like this can help in finding your position, as long as they do not become flame wars.

PS.: I would not care if you called me a villigante or not. Consider that national law might be unfair, like in Nazi-Germany. So I guess it is morally okay to ignore the law to enforce justice. The problem is to define what justice is, when you cannot resort to the legislator.

*) yes, I know we do not literally torture lads, but we name our activities like that. Personally I have had exchange with fellow baiters and announced to put more pain and torture along the lads path. We feel that we torture them, and we are happy to see when they wince and whine. So in a way we do torture them.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:10 pm

From this day forth, any lad safaried by the TWAT church will be required to sign a waiver that he is going of his own free will. That will clear up this whole mess. Unless, of course, I coerce him to do such.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

@ Eight

I'm curious what your take is, as an attorney/barrister, on stirring up lad wars and sending them on home invasion missions. To me, they seem like the most edgy baits, since they involve potential assault and theft of real property sometimes, albeit on other lads. As a baiter, would you personally try these tactics on lads? Why or why not? What if they were in the US or UK where there is some semblance of law in effect, would that change your decision?

Illegal acts can occur, crimes can be committed, even if nobody is ever arrested or prosecuted. Innocent isn't the same as "presumed innocent", or even not "not guilty", just because you never got arrested. Again, I'm just not buying the whole "nothing illegal happens here" line, even if technically there is a zero percent chance of prosecution due to who you're dealing with and where they are. Would you all operate with such legal certainty if the scammer was domestic?

@ Jojo

I have no doubt you actually could get a lad to sign a legal release, if you tried. Smile

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:54 pm

capricio wrote:

Again, I'm just not buying the whole "nothing illegal happens here" line...

*sigh* You don't buy into it purely because you don't want to. There's no logical argument that's going to sway you. You've made your mind up and it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary is presented to you, you'll still keep believing in falsehoods.

You make these blanket statements saying that we commit illegal acts yet you offer absolutely nothing to back your argument up.

It's a waste of time arguing with someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and argues just for the sake of arguing.

Split from Radio show thread: Ethics of the Chad Bait	View next topic View previous topic