Broadway pianist arrested for trying to seduce 14 year old boy...

[SomeOtherMe]

Yikes.

Musician and vocal coach Justin Brown, 26 — who has worked as a rehearsal pianist for “Dear Evan Hansen” and “King Kong” — was arrested Thursday for trying to have sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy.
 

Guess he can say goodbye to his career.

[Adam Chris]

Ugh.  

To Catch a Predator - Broadway Edition

or

Predator!

[macnyc]

Minors under the age of consent CANNOT legally give consent. Thus the name of the law.

The age of consent in NYS is 17. 

I know someone who served five years in prison under very similar circumstances. In this case, though, it was an underage girl. 

I can’t help but wonder what it’s like to be a cop and have it be your job to engage in sexually explicit banter with pedophiles!

[Kad]

"In custody, Brown allegedly admitted that he’d been chatting with several underage boys."

"He asked the kid’s age, was told “14,” and responded, “Ha-ha nice,” according to the criminal complaint against him."

I don't have too much sympathy.

Yes, it is not uncommon for gay teenagers to seek out older men for sex. There's a host of reasons for that. But the onus is on the adults to be making the safe decision for both themselves and the minors. If you're on Grindr looking for underage guys, like Brown was... come on.

Edit: The NY Daily News' article is a bit more thorough, and reveals it was Brown who initially reached out to the undercover cop on Grindr.

"Brown approached an undercover cop online on Sept. 2 — “Hey,” he wrote, according to a criminal complaint."

[ItsKatrina]

They're stopping someone from committing the statutory rape or a minor.  I think that's a perfectly good use of taxpayer money and the polices time.  I can't even believe that you'd think otherwise.

I can't even believe that anything I've said on this thread has to be said in 2019.  I can't believe how many people will defend pedophiles or will try to sweep pedophila under the rug as if it's not a heinous crime that needs to be stopped.  

Edit:  my post was edited to take out who I was quoting along with the context of this post being deleted.  

[ArtMan]

Again, your deleting posts without explanation.  Per your posting, I am asking why my post was deleted?  My post had nothing to do with this specific.  My post was a  explanation of how police investigate adults seeking sex with minors

[dramamama611]

JC!  Why was MY post deleted?   This is ridiculous --- I defended the police activity in this sting.  

[ArtMan]

Broadwayworld, you need to delete your own headline.  You go into GREAT detail about the case and mention specifics.  My post only stated that police have been conducting undercover stings for years.  Hypocrite.

[Moderator]

Multiple messages were deleted in this thread of posters attacking each other and name-calling. The offending posts and the responses to them were removed. 

[Alexander Lamar]

I did not attack ANYONE or “name call” on my post.

[Highland Guy]

In general, I am not a proponent of sting/entrapment operations.  

[ArtMan]

Moderator said: "Multiple messages were deleted in this thread of posters attacking each otherand name-calling. The offending posts and the responses to them were removed."

I didn't attack or name call anyone in my post.  Show me.  I'll even give you the courtesy of responding in a pm.  If not, you owe me an apology.

[Broadway Flash]

I certainly didn’t attack anyone. God forbid someone gives their opinion around here.

[Kad]

dramamama611 said: "JC! Why was MY post deleted? This is ridiculous --- I defended the police activity in this sting."

I will absolutely vouch for this, as well as the posts of ArtMan and Alexander Lamar (and Someone in a Tree2, whose post was critical of sting operations and was not at all abusive toward anyone, or Broadway Flash’s posts that I saw, that may have put forth an opinion I did not agree with but nevertheless were not abusive)
 

[Dave28282]

Horrible situation.

It is interesting to see how the laws differ between the USA and Europe. In Europe this would not be prosecutable, because the 14 year old boy simply did not exist, so it would be conceived as provocation. It was not a real scenario and there is no way to tell if the interaction would have been the same with a real boy, giving the same answers, making the same plans, etc. The man only showed interest. I think it's used mainly to map information about pedophiles, etc. It becomes prosecutable if the person offers money in exchange for sex with a minor. Then the money factor is the crime and is prosecutable without actually having sex. Not having had sex while also not offering money is not prosecutable. I'm not sure about the sending pictures, but I think that's not prosecutable either, just inappropriate.

 

[FindingNamo]

I too am interested in what kind of people go into law enforcement and pose as underage kids? What demons are THEY carrying around? I wonder the same about undercover vice cops who grope their own crotches in restrooms and bust the men who do the same thing in response. 

 

[Dave28282]

FindingNamo said: "I wonder the same about undercover vice cops who grope their own crotches in restrooms and bust the men who do the same thing in response."

Personally, I would never do such things in restrooms, but if a very attractive undercover cop would make advances like that and does what you describe above when I happen to be standing there, I might react in a way that is new to me, because the situation is not real. It is purposeful, unrealistic provocation with an agenda so I think it's important to realize that that differs from reality. In most European countries the law understands this.

[ArtMan]

Dave28282 said: "FindingNamo said: "I wonder the same about undercover vice cops who grope their own crotches in restrooms and bust the men who do the same thing in response."

Personally, I would never do such things in restrooms, but if a very attractive undercover cop would make advances like that and does what you describe above when I happen to be standing there, I might react in a way that is new to me, because the situation is not real. It is purposeful, unrealistic provocation with an agenda so I think it's important to realize that that differs from reality. In most European countries the law understands this."

Well, I have an acquaintance who reacted the way he shouldn't have and got arrested.  He didn't have any jail time but had to pay a huge fine and had to handle the shame of his parents bailing him out of jail.  He didn't learn his lesson and got arrested a second time.  I'm far from innocent but have never been what we used to call a "t room queen".  It's not worth the risk.

[ArtMan]

double

[CurtainPullDowner]

Looking forward to the LAW AND ORDER episode.

[Fan123]

I didn't see the now-deleted posts, so I can't judge for myself there, unfortunately. 

I wonder if [person] had any idea that their advocacy of increased monitoring of this board to purge offensive content, would ultimately help lead to a situation in which open discussion of important issues such as alleged workplace sexual harassment, attempted sex crimes, and the ethics of police tactics, would be censored and/or silenced. To be fair, the possibility probably never crossed his/her mind. And it's the BWW moderators' own choices which are directly at play here. But I think it points to something we should all keep in mind: (teacher voice) if you advocate to silence 'offensive' discussions which you think shouldn't be happening, even with the best of intentions, then sooner or later those same considerations will be used by somebody else to silence discussions which you think should be happening. I think a lot of people (not here as such, but generally speaking) are going to be experiencing rude awakenings about that in the coming years. Anyway, tangent over.

[Sondheimite]

[mailhandler777]

I once met this guy at an engagement party about 4 years ago. He was a super nice chatty kid that was there by himself. It's a bit shocking to say the least.

[GeorgeandDot]

It's safe to assume that this "entrapment scheme" occured because of previous incidents. They must've had something to go off of. In that case, I have no sympathy.

[Dave28282]

Fan123 said: "But I think it points to something we should all keep in mind: (teacher voice) if you advocate to silence 'offensive' discussions which you think shouldn't be happening, even with the best of intentions, then sooner or later those same considerations will be used by somebody else to silence discussions which you think should be happening. I think a lot of people (not here as such, but generally speaking) are going to be experiencing rude awakenings about that in the coming years. Anyway, tangent over."

Very well said Fan123!