That sting was run back in May by Millersville Assistant Police Chief Shawn Taylor and a colorful cast of characters he assembled for the operation.

Among the revelations, the recordings show:

  • Taylor did not involve other law enforcement agencies with more experience in such operations because of his unfounded conspiracy theories that prominent state officials are involved in child sex trafficking.
  • Members of a private group posed online as minors — despite Millersville police being told by prosecutors that the sting would be legal only if sworn law enforcement officers were the ones doing the work.
  • Shawn Taylor told one operative that investigators would be using “pre-signed search warrants,” which would likely be illegal, according to experts.
  • Police arrested one suspect then, when he refused to talk to investigators, they turned him over to the private group for questioning.
  • A Millersville detective boasted that the suspect was being taken to a jail where it was likely that he might not come out alive.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240717120405/https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/franklin-politics/disturbing-recordings-from-inside-child-predator-sting-shows-police-maga-operatives-ignoring-laws

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, they don’t care if you were a thief outside. They care if you’re a thief inside. They’re not doing it just because of a code, they’re defending the tiny amount of property they’re allowed to have. We also wouldn’t even blink if a homeowner beat up a thief in their house, so this is a bit hypocritical.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, they don’t care if you were a thief outside. They care if you’re a thief inside.

      I’m not talking about if someone steals from you in prison (not that it’s justifiable to be violent because someone stole something from you in prison anyway).

      The analogy here is getting robbed at some point and then beating up some other entirely random thief who never robbed you (who’s already getting punished for their crime in prison). When a pedophile is put in prison, there are no children for them to victimize, they are being punished for the crime they committed. They are not trying to rape the adult prisoners, so those prisoners can’t claim they were victimized by that person.

      Prisoners are not fit to administer justice, they are there to serve for their own crimes and moral failings, not play at being judge and jury for fellow criminals.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Dude, most of the people in prison are there for drugs and robbery. That’s not even feasible. I don’t know where you heard that’s a thing, but it isn’t.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            It would be infeasible for the prison justice code to include thievery done outside prison. Your example is ridiculous and meant to minimize the impact sexual predators have on people’s lives.

            • retrospectology@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              It would be infeasible for the prison justice code to include thievery done outside prison.

              What are you talking about? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? If Joe steals from you, that doesn’t give you a moral right to take it out on Bill because Bill also stole from someone before.

              Likewise, if you were sexually abused by Joe, you don’t have a moral right to take it out on Bill because he sexually abused someone. Especially when Bill is already serving prison time for his crime.

              I don’t know how I can make it any simpler for you.

              Your example is ridiculous and meant to minimize the impact sexual predators have on people’s lives.

              No. It’s not, and you know it’s not. It’s too illustrate how revenge is not transferrable and is mot an acceptable form of justice. The pedophiles that are attacked in prison are already recieving their punishment as handed down by the justice system by being in prison. The prisoners are not agents of our justice system, they are fucking criminals who are in prison for breaking the law. They don’t get the right to hurt anyone

              What you’re advocating is that everyone is entitled to administer whatever extrajudicial punishment they want because it makes them feel good.

              Prisoners do not have a legal or moral right to administer their own justice, regardless of whether or not they were victims of some crime in the past.

                • retrospectology@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  No one is equating anything. But I think you understand this, you’re just being dishonest.

                  Answer me this: If a murderer is tried and goes to prison, do any of the prisoners (or guards for that matter) have a moral right to kill him if they feel like it?

                  Murder is a really bad crime, right? It’s certainly not stealing a bag of chocolates. If someone murdered my friend, does that give me a right to kill any murderer in prison I want to?

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Depends, did they murder a child?

                    Because morally speaking, there are absolutely moral frameworks that would say yes.