Now, I'm not defending him or proclaiming his innocence, but I do find it disturbing that you can be convicted of a crime and be reviled as a sex offender when the only "victim" is an imaginary one. It would be wholly different if the sting involved a real girl that was interacted with before the cops swarmed in, but it didn't.
But what your acquaintance DID demonstrate is intent.
The victim here is hardly imaginary...the victim is EVERY 14 year old girl and their families.
I don't know how I feel about the guy being convicted of assault when no assault took place...that's a little unjust. But he's certainly not squeaky clean either.
You can just tell him he's lucky it wasn't my sting op and he wasn't coming to my house to visit my little girl.
I understand what you are saying neon,
But likewise you have to judge intent based upon action. Frankly sexual predation and assault should be a capital offense in most cases. I myself am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and so my outlook on these sort of things most of the time is with biblical glasses on. Of course that is Jewish law, and we aren't Jews. Well, probably not most of us here anyway. So where as I see that law is not for us, those laws in themselves are righteous in judgment. So what I am saying is the bible would say shed their blood and move on.
Anyway, my point here now is not the ideal, but what we're stuck with. Which is the US of America, where litigation reigns. And wicked men go free. But on that same note this country was founded to be a very "hands off" system. And one of those points is to not make intent a crime, but illegal action with intent a crime. So in this scenario we have everything leading up to the crime, but not the crime itself. Which again, if you want to get a law on the books for "conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct" or something along those lines I am perfectly fine with that. That's why I said Thought Police. Once you start judging intent it get's real gray, real quick. And we start down the slippery slope of "what about this, what about that". Suddenly you don't have a principle, but a whole book of rules. Well, we're kind of at that state now anyway...but I digress.
Let me give you a for instance, what if the ATF started trying to arrest people on NFA weapons charges?
But their only proof that you own one is because you said you did on some internet forum somewhere? I am of course assuming for the sake of discussion you don't illegally own one, yet they arrest you anyway because you said you did.
Or you said "I hate <insert President of choice here>, and I am really wanting to do something about it? So they arrest you for assassinating the President.
Or how about this, you buy a nice shiny new Camaro, and the cops arrest you for speeding before you even pull out of the sales lot? Why? Because the only reason to own such a car is to speed.
You see what I mean by Thought Police?
It's supposed to be that they arrest you for something you did, not what you were going to do. Except in certain circumstances. Like conspiracy to assassinate a world leader or something. The law systems is supposed to be more like an umpire, they aren't supposed to call you out before you reach the base.
As for thought crimes, I don't know who here can say they aren't guilty of thinking something that would be punishable by the court system? Hey, I am a felon, just not a convicted one.
) within five blocks.
. Kinda suspected that though, but just wasn't sure. 
