Former U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

[NAME REMOVED]

On 2/6/2025 at 8:12 AM, Scott75 said:

Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all.

 

[Scott75]

4 hours ago, User said:

13 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I told you in post #89:

**

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

**

Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this:

**

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. 

**

I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting:

**

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

 

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

I don't respond to spam.

The first time you responded to the last 2 lines in post #110, (in post #111), your response was a bit different. To whit:

**

I am still waiting for your argument. Stop spamming. 

**

I responded in post #113 that I didn't know what "argument" you were waiting for, but that far from "spamming", the points you were skipping over were the heart of my actual arguments that Scott Ritter has been unfairly maligned. You skipped over quoting that and simply quoted something I'd originally written way back in post #83. That being the following:

**

I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

**

Your response to these 2 sentences was simply "Irrelevant" in post #114, whereupon I said the following in post #122:

**

No, this point is at the very heart of this debate. Note the date of what you're responding to. We've been going around and around on this point for 4 days now. To date, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter engaged in anything other than a little sexual role play with some consenting adults. Let me know if you ever find any evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter actually engaged in any innapropriate behaviour with a minor.

**

As you frequently do, in your response in post #123, you snipped out everything but the first sentence from my post above and simply said:

3 hours ago, User said:

No, it is not. 

At this point, I think it's clear that we have to try to come to an agreement as to what, precisely, this debate is about. You have certainly spent a great deal of time focusing on the fact that Mr. Ritter was found guilty in 2009 of various charges. If this is so important to you, then clearly, whether the verdict was fair or a miscarriage of justice should be of immense importance. Do you agree on this at least?

 

Edited February 7, 2025 by Scott75

[User]

8 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

At this point, I think it's clear that we have to try to come to an agreement as to what, precisely, this debate is about. You have certainly spent a great deal of time focusing on the fact that Mr. Ritter was found guilty in 2009 of various charges. If this is so important to you, then clearly, whether the verdict was fair or a miscarriage of justice should be of immense importance. Do you agree on this at least?

I am not confused here. 

You continue to try to defend this pervert and I continue to point out he has no one to blame but himself for his sick perverted actions that were illegal. Thankfully that was not a real minor or he would have victimized them. We have these stings to catch perverts like him before they harm children. 

 

 

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, User said:

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

7 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/6/2025 at 11:07 AM, User said:

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to?

No. My point was made. 

Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Your point seems to be to obfuscate to defend Ritter.

No, I'm simply trying to understand what your point (or points) were. Let's get back to where this line of conversation started, with the assertion you made back in post #106. Quoting:

**

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do. 

**

I responded to this assertion of yours in post #108 with the following:

**

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to?

**

Your responded with this in post #111:

**

No. My point was made. 

**

Still not sure what point (or points) you were trying to make, I tried a different tack in my response in post #118:

**

Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

**

Whereupon we finally get to the statement you made in post #120:

**

Your point seems to be to obfuscate to defend Ritter. 

**

So in summation, when I tried to get clarification for what you meant in post #106 in my post #108, you  refused to do so, supposedly because your "point was made" (to who?) and then, when I continued to try to understand your internal logic for your assertion in post #118, you accuse -me- of obfuscation? 

Edited February 7, 2025 by Scott75

[User]

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

So in summation, when I tried to get clarification for what you meant in post #106 in my post #108, you  refused to do so, supposedly because your "point was made" (to who?) and then, when I continued to try to understand your internal logic for your assertion in post #118, you accuse -me- of obfuscation? 

In summation, you completely ignored my comment and tried to obfuscate. Once again:

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do. 

That is clear. 

Instead of dealing with that, you obfuscate asking what minors when you know what the circumstances of this case are. 

 

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Like Mr. Ritter, he also testified that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor.

Unlike Ritter though, what did he do differently?

Nothing that mattered. As I said, his main benefit was that his case was tried 7 years after Mr. Ritter's. I think times have simply changed. That and he probably got a more reasonable jury and judge.

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

In U.S. courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not asking you to prove Mr. Ritter's innocence. I -am- asking you if you have any solid evidence that his trial wasn't a miscarriage of justice.

He was found guilty already.

Yes, he was found guilty in a court of law. You apparently believe that the trial was fair. I've pointed to evidence strongly suggesting it wasn't. I think the primary evidence that his trial was a miscarriage of justice can be broken down into 3 parts:

1- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted sexually inapropriately with a minor

2- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter was looking to do so.

3- There is no solid evidence that he even believed he was doing so at any point in time.

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As you know, the focus of this thread is on Scott Ritter. As you pointed out, Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various charges in a trial that concluded back in 2011. I simply pointed out that -many- people have had unfair trials wherein the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Which has nothing to do with this.

On the contrary, it's an incredibly important point, as it establishes that just because Mr. Ritter was found guilty by a jury doesn't mean that he was actually guilty. With that established, the next step is to point out a similar case wherein the defendant was found to be innocent. I've done that in previous posts.

Edited February 8, 2025 by Scott75

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If you refuse to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my argument, yes, I don't think the debate can move forward. Do you think a debate can continue if one of the debaters refuses to engage with the other debater's arguments?

You spamming the thread is not an argument. 

There's a difference between spamming a thread and providing relevant information that one party is reluctant to look at.

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

There are some differences, but I'd say there is only one that really mattered.

Well, as I pointed out before, your attempts to relitigate this case here will not work.

For the audience, I've already pointed out to User that I have never tried to relitigate this case multiple times. I first did so in post #50. He keeps on ignoring the material in that post though, so once more:

**

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

**

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

There are some differences, but I'd say there is only one that really mattered. Both Mr. Ritter and Mr. Kim testified that they never believed that the undercover officers that they interacted with were minors. In both cases, the undercover officers were indeed not minors. The clear difference is that Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various inane charges, such as "unlawful contact with a minor", despite no evidence ever being presented that he did, in fact, have any such contact with a minor. So, why was Mr. Ritter found guilty, while Mr. Kim was found to be innocent? I think the crucial thing here may well be the time of the verdicts. Mr. Ritter's case was decided in 2011, while Mr. Kim's case was decided in 2018. What a difference 7 years can make sometimes. The story is here if you're interested:

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/defendant-wins-in-federal-internet-sting-prosecution/

Guess what: these tactics are still used today, still work today [snip]

This is true. Fortunately, juries are finally exonerating some of the victims of these stings. Here's a good website on this issue:

https://ladyjusticemyth.blog/

Quoting from the website:

**

Illegal Police ICAC proactive stings circumvent laws and steal taxpayer money, by manipulating our emotional, instinctual fear of child abuse.

Police run ILLEGAL proactive stings where they are supposed to be looking for pedophiles. Yet each prosecution nets the state a lot of money. So instead of following the rules in the contract signed by each police division of ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children), they break the rules creating ‘criminals’ out of law abiding citizens.

You see, these proactive stings are NOT ALLOWED to post to consenting adult only websites, but they do. Why? because unsuspecting men, looking for companionship in the right places would have no reason to doubt an adult was really corresponding with them. Additionally, police will send out photos of the ‘minor’ using an actual photo of an adult police officer. If that’s not enough to make you think you are talking with a consenting adult, when you get to the agreed location, the adult from the photo will come out to greet you. When you enter the home you are ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE OF A CHILD!

You might not believe this is true, that police would be so dishonest. My son didn’t believe it either and he is about to be sentenced to six years to life.

BELIEVE IT.

Please read my blog as I unfurl this cultural atrocity. Having first hand knowledge I will expose these truths in the hope of educating people and creating change. At some point I will want to start a petition with our concerns to pass to my local representatives. I hope you will continue to read, forward to friends and family, and eventually assist me in my outcry of injustice. Thank you for your interest.

**

 

[Scott75]

12 hours ago, User said:

12 hours ago, Scott75 said:

At this point, I think it's clear that we have to try to come to an agreement as to what, precisely, this debate is about. You have certainly spent a great deal of time focusing on the fact that Mr. Ritter was found guilty in 2009 of various charges. If this is so important to you, then clearly, whether the verdict was fair or a miscarriage of justice should be of immense importance. Do you agree on this at least?

I am not confused here. 

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with what I said in the nested quote above?

Edited February 8, 2025 by Scott75

[Scott75]

11 hours ago, User said:

11 hours ago, Scott75 said:

So in summation, when I tried to get clarification for what you meant in post #106 in my post #108, you  refused to do so, supposedly because your "point was made" (to who?) and then, when I continued to try to understand your internal logic for your assertion in post #118, you accuse -me- of obfuscation? 

In summation, you completely ignored my comment and tried to obfuscate.

Not only did I not ignore your comment, I first asked you to clarify what you meant, and when you refused to do so, I tried to -guess- what you meant, whereupon you somehow jumped to the conclusion that this meant I was trying to "obfuscate to defender Ritter". I suggest you consider that you are the one who is trying to obfuscate the fact that Mr. Ritter experienced a miscarriage of justice and has been unfairly maligned ever since.

[User]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with what I said in the nested quote above?

The answer was clearly implied in my response and all my others here. There was no miscarriage of justice here, that is your schtick, not mine. 

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

For the audience, I've already pointed out to User that I have never tried to relitigate this case multiple times.

And yet, you keep on doing it. 

9 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On the contrary, it's an incredibly important point, as it establishes that just because Mr. Ritter was found guilty by a jury doesn't mean that he was actually guilty. With that established, the next step is to point out a similar case wherein the defendant was found to be innocent. I've done that in previous posts.

Nope. 

The criminal charges he was found guilty of did not require him to have any premeditated intent to seek out a minor or to actually be with a minor. 

If this is your big argument, go find the actual law he was found guilty of and point out the problem with the charges. 

9 hours ago, Scott75 said:

There's a difference between spamming a thread and providing relevant information that one party is reluctant to look at.

I don't care what you call it, I am ignoring it. 

 

9 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think the primary evidence that his trial was a miscarriage of justice can be broken down into 3 parts:

Again, all irrelevant. 

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, User said:

12 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/7/2025 at 3:34 PM, User said:

On 2/7/2025 at 3:24 PM, Scott75 said:

At this point, I think it's clear that we have to try to come to an agreement as to what, precisely, this debate is about. You have certainly spent a great deal of time focusing on the fact that Mr. Ritter was found guilty in 2009 of various charges. If this is so important to you, then clearly, whether the verdict was fair or a miscarriage of justice should be of immense importance. Do you agree on this at least?

I am not confused here.

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with what I said in the nested quote above?

The answer was clearly implied in my response and all my others here. There was no miscarriage of justice here, that is your schtick, not mine.

You seem to think that my question to you was whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case. You are mistaken. My question was whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we take different sides on this issue. Do you agree to this at least?

[User]

22 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

You seem to think that my question to you was whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case. You are mistaken. My question was whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we take different sides on this issue. Do you agree to this at least?

"whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case"

vs

"whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice.

Did you honestly just try to say there is some kind of difference here?

Yes, clearly we disagree here, as you are defending Ritters actions that led him to be guilty here, while I am not. 

 

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

For the audience, I've already pointed out to User that I have never tried to relitigate this case multiple times. I first did so in post #50. He keeps on ignoring the material in that post though, so once more:

**

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

**

And yet, you keep on doing it.

No, I've never done it. Try reading my whole post to understand why.

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On the contrary, it's an incredibly important point, as it establishes that just because Mr. Ritter was found guilty by a jury doesn't mean that he was actually guilty. With that established, the next step is to point out a similar case wherein the defendant was found to be innocent. I've done that in previous posts.

Nope. 

The criminal charges he was found guilty of did not require him to have any premeditated intent to seek out a minor or to actually be with a minor. 

If this is your big argument, go find the actual law he was found guilty of and point out the problem with the charges.

You actually make a very good point here. You're right, he ddn't have to have any premeditated intent to seek out a minor or to actually engage with a minor. Looking at his case vs. the other one I brought up, I think the main difference may have been whether the jury believed Mr. Ritter's testimony that he never believed he was interacting with a minor. I think it's possible that he was convicted because the jury didn't believe him. As you may recall, in the other case I brought up, where the court decided the other defendant was innocent, it's possible that they decided that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor. So it may all come down to what the jury believes.

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

[Scott75]

6 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Yes, he was found guilty in a court of law. You apparently believe that the trial was fair. I've pointed to evidence strongly suggesting it wasn't. I think the primary evidence that his trial was a miscarriage of justice can be broken down into 3 parts:

1- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted sexually inapropriately with a minor

2- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter was looking to do so.

3- There is no solid evidence that he even believed he was doing so at any point in time.

Again, all irrelevant. 

No, I think they're all relevant, though I think the third one is the most important for the actual trial. I imagine it may all have hinged on whether or not they believed Mr. Ritter's testimony that he never believed he was interacting with a minor.

[Scott75]

2 hours ago, User said:

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

6 hours ago, User said:

The answer was clearly implied in my response and all my others here. There was no miscarriage of justice here, that is your schtick, not mine.

You seem to think that my question to you was whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case. You are mistaken. My question was whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we take different sides on this issue. Do you agree to this at least?

"whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case"

vs

"whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice.

Did you honestly just try to say there is some kind of difference here?

Yes, clearly we disagree here, as you are defending Ritters actions that led him to be guilty here, while I am not. 

Right, we clearly disagree on whether Mr Ritter's verdict was a miscarriage of justice. What I'm arguing is that this disagreement is a very important part of our debate. Do you disagree?

[User]

55 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Right, we clearly disagree on whether Mr Ritter's verdict was a miscarriage of justice. What I'm arguing is that this disagreement is a very important part of our debate. Do you disagree?

LOL, you can give whatever importance you like to whatever you want... you started a thread here to defend this sick pervert. Seems pretty important to you to defend his perversions and not caring about engaging in sexual relations with minors. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

There is no tragedy here. The average person doesn't do this perverted shit, because they know it is wrong. The average person, will want to make sure someone is not really a minor before trying to engage in sexual relations with them. 

The tragedy, is when sick perverts like this do rape and assault minors before they are stopped. 

[Scott75]

On 2/8/2025 at 7:37 PM, User said:

On 2/8/2025 at 6:40 PM, Scott75 said:

Right, we clearly disagree on whether Mr Ritter's verdict was a miscarriage of justice. What I'm arguing is that this disagreement is a very important part of our debate. Do you disagree?

LOL, you can give whatever importance you like to whatever you want... you started a thread here to defend this sick pervert.

No, I started this thread to discuss Mr. Ritter's life. You're the one who seems to have the need to engage in personal attacks on him.

On 2/8/2025 at 7:37 PM, User said:

Seems pretty important to you to defend his perversions and not caring about engaging in sexual relations with minors.

For the umpteeth time, I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged in any sexual relations with minors and I strongly suspect that neither have you. I'm not sure why you like engaging in this fantasy, but I think of it as childish behaviour.

[Scott75]

On 2/8/2025 at 7:39 PM, User said:

On 2/8/2025 at 6:33 PM, Scott75 said:

The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here:

There is no tragedy here.

How would you know? Did you even read the article that you snipped out of my quote? For the audience, here is the linked article:

Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

Quoting from the introduction to the article:

**

Jace Hambrick worked as an apprentice laborer during the week, renovating homes around Vancouver, Wash., and at a neighborhood gas station on weekends. Much of the rest of his life was online. He was hard-core, amassing a collection of more than 200 games. People told him it wasn’t smart to be so cut off from reality, but his internet life felt rich. As a dungeon master in Dungeons & Dragons, he controlled other players’ destinies. As a video warrior, he was known online by his nom de guerre and was constantly messaging fellow gamers, particularly his best friend, Simon. Though the two had never met in person, over the last few years they paired up as teammates playing Rainbow Six Siege and Rocket League and grew close.

At 20, Hambrick was still living at home with his mother to save money for college, where he hoped to study game design. He was a voracious reader who could knock off a 1,000-page fantasy novel in two days. People liked him; he made them laugh. When he and his mother lived in places that had board-game clubs, he was a regular. And his kindness could be surprising. He would spend a morning handing out sandwiches to the hungry.

The problem, he knew, was that he was a nerd. Sometimes he was too open with people. As a boy, he took medication for A.D.H.D. His mother, Kathleen, describes him affectionately as her “introverted, sensitive, immature, coddled, nerdy son.” They are very close. She would prod him to get out more, but he wasn’t someone who could meet women at a bar. Online, it was different. Starting when he was 18, a few times a month, he clicked through the Casual Encounters section of Craigslist, looking for sex. There were so many listings, but when he tried messaging, it was rare to get a response. If people did respond, they often went dark after a few emails.

Users had to certify that they were 18 or older, but at the time Craigslist didn’t verify users’ age. People described their appearance in personal ads, then sent photos that didn’t match. Some seemed to enjoy role playing. He once replied to a post describing an attractive 21-year-old, but when he arrived at the address she gave him, an old man answered the door. He got out of there fast. Every once in a while, it worked out: In the past few years, he had sex with five or six women he met this way.

One Friday after work in February 2017, Hambrick came across a Casual Encounters “w4m” (woman searching for man) post that seemed meant for him.

“Jus gamer gurl sittin’ home on sunny day,” it read. “we can chat as long as im not lvling!”

Hambrick emailed back. “Sounds like fun. What game you playin?”

“i am HOOKED on ALIEN ISOLATION,” Gamer Gurl replied.

“forget sex,” Hambrick wrote. “Let me come watch I haven’t gottn that one yet,” adding that he was 20. Fifteen minutes later, Gamer Gurl replied that she was 13.

Hambrick was confused. “why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?”

She asked for his cellphone number and they switched to texting, exchanging photos. Gamer Gurl was beautiful, he thought, if he wasn’t being pranked: Big eyes, cute white cap, soft smile, gazing up at the camera serenely with a really nice set of headphones.

They exchanged a few texts about sex. “I can be real bad if your into bondage” he typed. But he was already hoping for more than just sex.

“I don’t get out much,” he texted. “I feel like if we got to talking it might go somewhere. You’re beautiful and a gamer. I have no problem hanging out with you.:)”

“that’s kewl,” Gamer Gurl replied. “Wat bout that eatin out stuff :)”

“Yes, I will still do that:)”

“Oh my naughty boi.”

Was this an elaborate game? Again she claimed to be 13. The photo seemed to tell a different story, and the gaming chair she was seated in looked too expensive for a kid. She used slang a 13-year-old probably wouldn’t know, like “FTP” — “[expletive] the police” — that originated in ’80s hip-hop. The vulgarities and snide tone seemed too adult. Her texts were full of “lol”s. Was she an immature teenager? Or a sly adult?

Her driving directions seemed too specific for 13.

**

The article goes on to say that Gamer Gurl was in fact an undercover officer. A bit more of the article:

**

In May 2018, Hambrick had a bench trial and took the stand on his own behalf. Among the witnesses were undercover police for the Vancouver Police Department. Detective Robert Givens, a middle-aged man, testified that he had written all the Gamer Gurl emails and texts. Officer Heather Janisch, dressed in her police uniform, told the court that she had posed for the photo and invited Hambrick into the house. At the time of the photo, she testified, she was about 24 — four years older than Hambrick.

Hambrick and his mother were so confident that he would be acquitted that the two celebrated over coffee during a court recess. When the judge announced the verdict, they went numb: guilty on both counts, attempted rape of a child in the second degree and communication with a minor for immoral purposes. Based on the emails and texts, the judge found, “the defendant clearly expressed by words and conduct that he intended to have sex with a 13-year-old.”

Hambrick’s first thought was, He’s joking. “For the first time, it really dawned on me, I was going to prison,” he said later. “I looked around, and I saw my Aunt Maureen crying. And my Aunt Sally crying. I saw my mom crying. And I just broke.” Before being led away, he was permitted to give his mother a hug. She rubbed his back, as if he were a little boy, their sobs filling the courtroom.

He was transported to the Clark County jail, strip-searched and dressed in an orange jumpsuit. “I sat in the corner of the cell, knees to my chest, hugging them, and I couldn’t stop crying.”

The judge later sentenced him to 18 months to life and a minimum of 10 years on the sex registry. Under Washington law, the parole board has the option of extending the incarceration of offenders like the Net Nanny defendants indefinitely.

Within weeks, Kathleen Hambrick, now 55, rented her house and purchased an R.V., which she paid a family to keep parked in their backyard minutes from Washington Corrections Center in Shelton. She is fiercely protective of her son and rarely missed a visiting day. “I chose to have Jace,” she says. “I was 30, I wasn’t married, I didn’t have a boyfriend, so I picked a man to father a child.” Kathleen has made a career as a computer programmer, a job she has been doing for 35 years and could do from the R.V. She has been married and divorced three times. Mother and son traveled together to Morocco, Central America, Mexico and all over Europe. Though not religious, she preached kindness.

After Jace’s trial, Kathleen started a blog she calls Lady Justice Myth, writing about the unfairness of the legal system, linking to court cases and news stories. Many of her blog entries rant against prosecutors and the police. Others beg, “Please do not ruin my son’s life with lifelong registration and prison.” After more than two years, the blog had 141 followers. The only voice for change has come from a small band of middle- and upper-middle-class parents of young men arrested in Net Nanny stings. They share legal information and attend the trials of one another’s sons. Kathleen Hambrick met Dan Wright on a Florida website dedicated to challenging the state’s sex-offender laws. Wright, an engineer, and his wife, Joylyn, a nurse, are one of at least six families of young soldiers stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, Wash., who were arrested in the stings. All faced discharge from the military and years in prison.

**

I have a New York Times account, which allows me to share 10 articles a month in full. Here's this one, for anyone who's interested:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wE4.huKc.mYsZ9PHGHC38&smid=url-share

[User]

34 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

How would you know? Did you even read the article that you snipped out of my quote? For the audience, here is the linked article:

I am familiar enough with this to know as I have already explained many times. If this article has a particular point, quote that sentence and make your argument. 

50 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

For the umpteeth time, I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged in any sexual relations with minors and I strongly suspect that neither have you. I'm not sure why you like engaging in this fantasy, but I think of it as childish behaviour.

For the millionth time, that is irrelevant.