Texas minister charged in Internet sex sting

Source: Associated Press

A minister from a Dallas-area Baptist megachurch was caught in an Internet sex sting and charged with online solicitation of a minor, police said Friday.

Undercover officers posing as a 13-year-old girl communicated with Joe Barron, 52, of Plano for about two weeks. The online conversations were sexual in nature, police said.

On May 6, Barron suggested meeting the girl in person. He eventually made the nearly 200-mile drive to Bryan on Thursday, when he was arrested. Police said they found a web-cam and condoms in his car.

... Barron is one of 40 ministers at Prestonwood Baptist Church, one of the largest churches in the country with 26,000 members. He ministers to married adults.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/16/national/a183337D72.DTL&tsp=1

With all of the news on stings on TV and newspapers showing how fools get caught you would think he would know better.

and he needs to be locked up in a mental hospital until he's cured or dead. At least that's my opinion, prison will not help him and any sentence he may serve will only delay his return to preying on children.

Prestonwood, no less.

You oughta see the place. Looks like a fucking city.

This is priceless.

1.2 million sq ft of building space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestonwood_Baptist_Church
Prestonwood Baptist Church, located in Plano, Texas, is one of the largest megachurches in North America. The sprawling campus includes a 7,000 seat worship center, children and student centers, a Pre-K through 12th grade school, football and baseball fields, a sports and fitness center, a cafe with a Starbucks inside, and two bookstores.



http://www.daviscrossfield.com/pres.htm

there and tossing them all out. amazing how a simple message can go so wrong.

...hasn't it?

- A new chapter in the on-going saga, "The Decay From Within, Continues..."

woops!

Good one! And welcome aboard hector_plasmic! :hi:

I still don't understand how they can convict a person of attempting to have sexual relations with someone who DOESN"T EVEN EXIST!

But I'm with you. This is "thought crime."

Never mind that there were no children involved at all. Never mind that it took two weeks of provocative taunting to get this guy worked up enough to take a trip to meet a non-existent person. But he apparently was thinking of having sex with a 13-year-old, therefore he must be destroyed.

What if someone chatted my up on the internet and convinced me to rob a bank that didn't exist? I put my gun and a hood in the trunk and drove to a what turned out to be a vacant lot. Horrors! Lock me up! I thought the wrong thing!

This is one of those things where otherwise seemingly rational people lose their ability to reason. But it makes good headlines. Kids and sex are a staple of ratings-driven media. I hope this doesn't drive this guy to suicide.

If the fake victim hangs out in a chat room where a child SHOULD be safe, and a predator approaches and engages, then it seems like preventative action. If the fake 13-year-old hunts down men in adult forums that are intended for sexual discussion, that seems like entrapment. At any rate, the biggest problem for the indicted in these cases is where are they ever going to find sympathy when they actually make a trip to try to meet up with what they think is a 13-year-old?

on edit: And, among the webcam and condoms, where was his bible?

consistently says she is only 13?

Statutory rape laws apply even if a child "seduces" an adult. This is no different. The man didn't drive 200 miles on an impulse.

You're exactly right -- he didn't drive on an impulse. It took two weeks of goading and taunting to get him into this state of mind. But, again, there was never any child involved at all. All he did was think "the wrong thing." Therefore, he must be destroyed?

That's not a thought

he actually tried to ACT upon it. They didn't go to his house and arrest him for participating in the chat with the non-existent child, he drove to attempt to meet her and for what?

and as far as goading him and tempting him goes, i don't buy it. Was he participating in this chat for weeks with a supposed 13 year old for any reason other than to satisfy his sexual desires in one way or the other? I'm certainly not naive enough to believe he was just proselatizing to her. no way. this guy clearly intended to manipulate and satisfy his own desires and wants.

to have sex with a person he believed to be only 13. That was the crime.

This went well beyond fantasy or transient impulse.

drive 200 miles to have sex with a child. poor guy.

for any amount of time, my response would be "child, please, think about what you are doing. It's not wise, and it's not safe."

Unless I decided to hold back just long enough to get contact information, and then contact the child's family.

him into this state of mind." :wtf: Are you saying that going in a chat room with the sole purpose to have sex with a thirteen-year-old isn't wrong? You've got to be kidding right? Why are you defending this guy's actions? He was crying and felt "guilt" for goodness sakes.


"... Bryan authorities say the minister began crying Thursday morning as police arrested him. "He said he was feeling guilt and shame and grief," said Bryan police Officer Lesley Malinak, a Police Department spokeswoman."

more...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/051708dnmetministerarrest.107c9d887.html?npc

That's what they are there for.

like it or not, the similarities are very real. I wonder if this guy will get up to 15 years in prison?

:dem:

I've read the transcripts of the alleged chat sessions Ward had. Since their entire premise was one of fantasy (dominatrix/submissive), who can say how much of what Ward wrote was fact or fantasy?

Nevertheless, he was, at the very least, thinking "the wrong thing." Therefore, he must be destroyed.

And their friends? he brought these things up - not the woman on the other end. Yuk.

And he drove 200 miles to carry this out.

This wasn't a fantasy and it wasn't entrapment.

he can think say or type what he wants, he was only screwed when we showed up to meet. I mean what is the alternative...you let him rape a kid then its ok to go after him? I have no problem with him being arrested.

He approached what he thought was and wanted to be a kid in a non sexual average chat room he is still ok there

He brought up sex and He spent 2 weeks grooming what he hoped was a child talking about sex with them and while I find that sick..he is probably still ok legally

He showed up to have sex..ie rape what he thought was a 13 yr old child...hes on his way to jail....all he had to do is stay home...ask his wife to dress up in an outfit...rent a movie ..find himself young looking 18 yr old...anything..he can be twisted if he wants just do not show up hopping to rape a kid...

There is very High chance they don't get caught the first time they show up to have sex with a kid...They all say its the first time but what are the odds ...

long as he doesn't fuck them, he won't be in trouble? I suppose the police made him sign on to a chat site and held a gun to his head so he could spew. I wonder if you are a parent? I would kick his butt into the next life if he did that to my kid.

of 5. I was stating the facts. In most states they wont touch him until he sets up a meet and shows up. There are a few where simply having the chat is problem..I am on more or less the same side you are....I think you miss read my post.

The fact in this case is the guy was not arrested for having an illicit chat but for attempting to meet what he thought was a child for sex. I was pointing out to someone who thinks the thought police got him....that he actually acted on his impulse not just thought about it.

harm them. but if you are not concerned about that, too bad. I've seen enough in 27 years of teaching to feel NO PITY. Fucker, I hope he gets years.

And it's the cops who are the predators in these situations.

In much the same way as attempted murder and conspiracy to commit a murder are criminal acts in and of themselves.

She didn't have to convince him to do anything.

If you were sociopathic and dumb enough to let a stranger convince you to rob a bank, so dumb that you drove to the bank with a gun and a hood in the trunk, then yes, you would deserve to be caught and sent to prison -- for conspiring to rob a bank.

have sex with children seemingly rational? This reminds me of the people who think teachers having sex with children, if they are boys, aren't doing anything wrong. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge> or that the polygamists were just living their religion. Those posts exist by the way. this is right there with them. I personally won't give a shit if he blows his brains out. dig deeper and you will find that this is probably not the first time he did this and there is a trail of slime going back a long, long way. but don't let that bother you.

edit: this goes way up yonder. these are dropping way down.

this guy is a menace, plain and simple. Thoughts often lead to deeds. By showing up for that meeting, I believe he showed his intent to go through with his plans. Also, you have to wonder if he has done this before and gotten away with it.

One must also consider his occupation. He's supposed to help people, not hurt them.

And that's against the law, even if an underage child consents.

This wasn't some spur of the moment act. He put a lot of thought and planning, and 200 miles into his decision. Only a true pedophile would have gone that far.

but nearly anyone can be talked into something they would never normally do, though they might fantasize about it. Entrapment is not a valid way to ferret out criminals. It is a way to create them.

But he thought it was, therefore he must be destroyed?

She asks a friend for help in finding a murderer-for-hire; she alerts the police. The police send in one of their own, and the woman offers him $5000 to kill her cheating spouse. Has she committed a criminal act? The law says yes, and the courts have agreed.

How is that significantly different than an adult who goes into a chat room, approaches what he thinks is a 13 year old girl, and propositions her for sex? And then, on his own volition, travels a long distance with the paraphenalia of sex to visit someone he believes to be a 13 year old girl. Has he committed a criminal act? The law says yes and the courts have agreed.

It is not merely the act itself which is illegal. The law also makes the preparation to commit the act a crime as well, if that preparation comes close enough to the act itself. Had this minister of God merely solicited the girl and/or talked "dirty," there is very little that law enforcement could have done. The fact that he drove 200 miles to visit someone he thought to be a 13 year old girl and had on his person paraphenalia of a sexual nature meets the legal criteria of a criminal act.

If the facts are correct, it is unnerving that there are people who think this guy was entrapped.

No one is out to "destroy" this man. He has been arrested and now he has the right to a fair trial.

Assuming the prosecutor is correct, he was fully intending to rape a 13 year old girl -- that's what it would be, rape.

Fortunately, the person he made the assignation with was an undercover cop, not a desperate child.

I don't understand what drives these men to even consider this kind of activity. He probably won't get convicted for any length of time, but he will suffer severe humiliation. If that keeps another pervert from preying on a child, then thats good enough in my book. We can't expect the police to wait until crimes have occurred in every case.

posing as a prostitute does the fact that there was no actual prostitute make him less guilty of soliciting for prostitution?

You cannot be so simple minded as to believe these spurious arguments.

The fact that "entrapment" exists as a legal term refutes the likelihood of your charge, "entrapment" is easily recognizableand the transcripts of the online conversation will be reviewed in court.

Your whining is hollow.

Are you a fellow traveler with this monster, lusting after children yourself?

Or are you merely a disruptor, pretending to a stance in order to disturb the discussions of serious folk?

child...

has he actually met up with someone at the other end? he solicited. he broke the law. he's toast.

that it was cops running this sting, and not a bunch of vigilantes. Frankly, if I ever get on a jury to try the vigilantes, I'd have a really hard time convicting them...

Whether a jury convicts him or not, he'll never be placed in a position of authority again, and that's the good thing about the sting.

What is it about fundie preachers and perversion?

:shrug:

What site was he on? I very much doubt they were going to some random kids site and soliciting. It was probably some sort of site known to these sorts of people.

Much of what happens in the federal system with regard to child porn is, in fact, entrapment, so much so that the FBI is now the world's largest distributor of child pornography. Nonetheless, I do think these sting operations are worthwhile. Sex offenders who seek actual physical victims are, according to the actuarial data, much less likely to be first-time offenders, and are more likely to re-offend. Often these folks have organized everything in their lives around the activity of having sex with children. And, contrary to the media, who sensationalize the same-sex cases, the most common pattern is a man who is attracted to teen girls (technically, these folks are called hebephiles rather than pedophiles, but most folks don't bother to make this distinction.)

A man (and usually it is) who likes to have sex with kids will often have multiple victims. The ones who are good at avoiding detection are often not caught. Once they have been charged, however, these folks are not like the drug offenders who plead out and are processed through: many have enough money to mount a sustained legal battle, and they do. As a consequence, when dealing with this type of offender, the cops usually develop a solid case, as in this case.

This guy has a job of a sort that many sex offenders who seek out child victims would love, i.e., one that may give him access to children (yes, he ministered to married adults, but these are exactly the same sorts of folks who have kids in the home). He's 52, so, if this really was the first time, poop on him, he should know better. And if this isn't his first time (which, at age 52, seems unlikely), then it's certainly his just desserts.

We have given up many rights in the war on terra, but I am not worried about the effect of this sort of sting operation on our liberty. You're just never going to be in the position where you are tempted to have sex with a kid you meet online. That's just not going to randomly happen to you. If it does happen, it's because you sought it out, and, if you're that sort of person, then prison is best, if not for you, then at least for your future victims.

I might add that many of these people charged with this sort of thing are not simply interested in what you might consider "normal intercourse" with these kids. Many, many are the worst kinds of sexual sadists: it would appear that these kinds of paraphilas go together (go figure). I could give details. We are better off with this SOB in prison.

on as Tiffany or something. chit chat and watch them come. if they want to go offline right away, bingo. I had no less than ten hits per session. it made me want to run.

Your Tiffany is just a vessel of provocation.

like moths to a flame, especially abused or neglected kids who are already victimized, because they seek approval. They don't ignore or shun adult attention and approval.

This MF wasn't a victim. Nobody enticed or entrapped him. Sane, normal adults are the ones who would be put off by a child's sexual provocation. A rational adult would have logged off and discontinued the contact. Unless the idea of sex with kids is ok with you, you're not gonna hang around that kind of place. It really disturbs me that you can conceive of an adult being teased and sexually aroused by a child in a chatroom.

What a miserable waste of resources. Child abduction is real, but from cars and vans, and occasionally through home invasions. But these internet stings are just sick and twisted and a disgrace to the (in)justice system.

No. He was under the impression that he was about to fuck a 13yr old child.

end of story.

No such creature exists in nature requiring society's protection.

And whenever I see any thread which applauds this kind of police misconduct I am duty bound to step in and point out how off-the-rails this kind of operation is.

There are 13 yr olds who will respond to the positive attention of an adult. Happens, sadly, all too often. Do your research before posting your deluded crap here. There is certainly a need for protecting children from people who prey on them.

What planet you been living on?

edited to add... nothing in the article states that he revealed his actual age in their online chats.

As a consequence of your hysteria, you have come to the misguided conclusion that this is an appropriate use of police resources and state prosecutorial power.

I think you've been watching too much of To Catch a Predator. Salacious entertainment masquerading as a public service announcement.

You think this is the first time he's done this?

Get a clue, I don't give a flying fuck HOW they catch them, this asshole belongs far away from kids.
Entrapment, yeah, and if he gets off do you want him talking to YOUR daughter?

Well, except in the real world: http://www.netsmartz.org/news/onlinemolesters.htm

"Christina Long allegedly published a racy web site, used almost a dozen provocative screennames and routinely had sex with partners she met in various chatrooms. Christina was also the 13-year-old captain of her school cheerleading squad and an altar girl. The principal of her Catholic school in the small New England town where she lived described her as a "sweet girl" who was very well-mannered. Christina was found strangled in a remote ravine in New York state, three days after she disappeared. Saul Dos Reis, 25, confessed to the killing and led police to the body.5"

"In Chamblee, Georgia, a 40-year-old car dealer was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl he befriended during online chat sessions. Police say Michael Shipman, claiming to be 17, initiated a chat friendship with the girl and got her address. Investigators say that Shipman posed as a repairman, attacked her in her home twice, and raped her during the second attack.7"

"A 13-year-old girl in Minneapolis, Minnesota, allegedly met Joel Rensberger in a chatroom. After a telephone conversation, she agreed to meet him, believing that he was 18. The eighth grader told police that Rensberger took her to a motel. Once they got there she said he gave her a video game to play and some wine coolers to drink. Rensberger then allegedly raped the 13-year-old while she struggled to push him away and told him to stop. After the assault, she says they left the hotel and Rensberger drove her home.9

Thirteen-year-old Kacie Rene Woody allegedly met David Fuller in a chatroom on the Internet. The bodies of Kacie and Fuller were found shot to death in a van at a storage facility in Arkansas. Inside Kacie's home, police found evidence that she fought for her life including broken eyeglasses, a chair propped against a door, and all of her shoes indicating that she left the house without wearing any. Authorities said that Fuller struck up an Internet relationship with Kacie and might have tricked her into believing that he was a teenager.10"

Yep, good thing these acts were all just figments of my imagination, and all these children are safe at home, asleep in their beds as we speak. Right?

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

...if he cain't get a little teenage poozle? Haw haw. It's one of the perks of the job. Ain't it? Them Cat-licks get plenny. 'Course them is differnt, cuz of the homo thang.

You won't catch us evangelicals doing none of them preversions. Mostly.

thank Jesus for soap on a rope:hurts: :hurts: :hurts:

Very nice north Dallas suburb (Richardson/Addison area). Big mega church. :rofl:

I know, I know, Baptist's call them pastors, but it's the same thing.

No wonder I'm an atheist with fucking perverts like that infecting churches.