home

Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting

I'm sure people want to comment on HSA Deputy Press Director Brian Doyle and the underage sting. I've been waiting for a few more facts before commenting on it. The main question for me is whether the internet profile of the sheriff's deputy posing as a 14 year old stated she was 14, or whether there are email, phone or chat conversations in which she tells him she is 14.

How could he be stupid enough to have given a 14 year old he met in an AOL chat room his real name, office and cell phone numbers, to tell her he worked for Homeland Security and to send her regular, non-sexy photos of himself?

Why would he think a 14 year old would be interested in a 55 year old man?

Or, did he believe she was over 18, even though he knew she lived with her mother? Turns out she wasn't a 14 year old girl, but a Sheriff's deputy posing as one on the internet, so in fact she was over 18.

So who really did the luring and who instigated and encouraged illegal activity with a child? Correct answer: The sheriff's department. But it's not entrapment if he was predisposed to commit the act.

Here is the Polk County Sheriff's Office press release. (pdf) Check out the agencies involved. Where was the FBI? Surely between March 12 and today Polk County and HSA had the opportunity to contact them. Given Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stated priority of cracking down on child porn, and the high number of cases brought under federal law, why is this one being prosecuted by the state officials?

CNN reports that Polk County officials say Doyle confessed when arrested.

In interviews with police, Doyle confessed and has agreed to waive extradition to Florida, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.

Confessed to what? To soliciting the girl or a girl he believed to be 14? Did the posing deputy announce on the internet or in a chat room or during a phone call she was 14? They taped phone calls and seized computers at his home in Maryland that likely will have the answer.

One thing we don't need is stronger penalties for internet sex offenders and child pornography. In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT act which increased federal sentencing guidelines and created new mandatory minimum sentences. See, 18 U.S.C. Section 2251, Sexual Exploitation of Children. A first offense carries a mandatory minimum 15 year prison sentence.

The feds are now investigating, and they will search the computers to see how many images of underage girls are on it. If there's enough to fit their guidelines, Doyle will face additional federal charges.

I hope the authorities have the sense to house him in segregation if he's denied bond. He will not be safe in the general population of any prison, state or federal.

Update: Regarding the other HSA official who plead to indecent exposure in the same court today, I think the coincidence is that they both happened in Polk County Florida, (Lakeland, Tampa) a bastion (if that's the right word) of the evangelical right, and that they are both local law enforcement busts. Also, Doyle's was a sting. Was Figeroa's victim a plant too? According to this report, no. But why did the newspaper publish her name if she's a juvenile and a sex offense victim? Isn't there a policy against that?

Rachel Wright, the 16-year-old who reported the incident, said Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes.

Here's the answer from the Tampa Tribune:

Although TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune have a policy against publishing the names of victims in sex cases, Wright and her mother, Cleme Consalvo, have chosen to go public.

Ten minutes? Any guys want to weigh in on that one?

< Late Night Blog Fight | Brian Doyle Hearing Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#1)
    by HK on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    Sunday :: April 09, 2006
    What is this, a premonition?! Seriously, though, sadly there are men of this age who are stupid enough to think that young girls are interested in them. This case is certainly blurring the lines of entrapment, but given the predisposition of the public to be very harsh on such offenders, I don't think a conviction will be a problem. I too hope he is segregated if jailed, though.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    No it was a typo on my part. It's fixed now.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#3)
    by HK on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    Forgive my sarcasm - actually, I sometimes 'lose' days and had to check my calendar to see if you were right when I read the date on the post! Jeralyn, I was wondering what you think about suggestions that the internet encourages child pornography. My feeling is that the people who engage in such activities would do so with or without the internet, so the internet is a positive thing in this respect because it means we can catch them. 'Grooming', on the other hand, would be much less easy without the internet, so it's a complex issue.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    I would be ok with this sting IF this man had been suspected or reported prior to this. I don't believe in stings that get people to do something wrong for the FIRST TIME in their lives.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    Christy Hardin Smith of FLD has more on the subject Pedophiles -- Things You Ought To Know. She has prosecuted several pedophile cases. This quote from WAPO:
    Another Homeland Security official -- Frank Figueroa, special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Tampa -- faces trial this week on charges of exposing himself to a teenage girl last year at a mall. Figueroa, who has been suspended, pleaded not guilty.
    Homeland Security?

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    Comments from David the unconvicted and perhaps harmless "pedophile" here: How could Doyle have been stupid enough? God or creation has made men so that they will take risks, apparently unreasonable risks, for sexual satisfaction. >Why would he think a 14 year old >would be interested in a 55 year old >man? That is easy. 14-year old girls tend to not be "interested in" 55 y o men, but at least some 14-y-o girls are interested in what adult men have or have access to. Could be money, could be sex, could be sexual experience and knowledge, could be status, could be friendship, could be a fantasy of leaving home and being away from mom and dad. Some girls of ages 13-17 think or hope that they are sexually attractive, and they'll enjoy seeing the response of any male to their charms, if the male meets their idea of being a judge of sexual attractiveness. Some girls simply want someone to talk to who is more mature than the 14-y-o they know in school. We live in a society in which we think of a "natural" segregation of adults and kids in certain activities, and so you miss how easily friendly teens and friendly adults would befriend each other in certain circumstances. I am thinking of a about 1 in 4 or so churches, in which the leaders don't stop such socialization and it happens without impediment. The Net is similar, but without the supervision of mom or dad being present somewhere nearby. If a male sets up a profile on an instant messenging service such as ICQ, and puts in that profile phrases indicating an interest in minors, he'll get unsolicited greetings from many other people including minors or probably pretending-to-be-minors who want to get to know him better. At least some of those minors who write are in fact real minors, I'd warrant, given their online conversation. I had such a profile on ICQ at one point, and I would guess that 1/2 of the minors who contacted me were real minors, as opposed to pretending-to-be-minors. And, those pretending to be minors may at times choose certain provocation screen names, so as to entrap the unwary adults. I know of a fellow whose story was reported on the Net, who contacted a minor with the screen name "Jillian Jackson" but "Jillian" turned out to be one of those vigilante moms who set up a sting and turned the online conversation over the law enforcement. The news reports that he confessed and you ask confessed to what. The press release says using a computer to seduce a child and sending material harmful to minors, which were "hard-core" porn clips, supposedly. As for child pornography, I think we would be better off with the understanding in place before 1982 and New York v Ferber. Since then, the states (and the federal government also, but to a lesser extent) have prosecuted many cases of adolescent nudity which was both harmless and, from the point of view of those creating it (adult and minor), their artistic expression. Stephen Yurick, among others, is a clear case. He was prosecuted for possession of several images of "child pornography," among which were images that his daughter had taken of herself using a time-delayed camera when no one else was present when the photograph was taken. Back in junior high, a lot of the guys thought the cheerleaders were sexy and I am sure that the cheerleaders appreciated it. The thought of being sexy isn't harmful to them, but natural. But today, most states and sometimes the federal government will prosecute a photo of a minor nude or topless, if the photographer or minor regarded her or herself as sexy while the photograph was being taken. In Washington state, in some jurisdictions, photographing nudity of an adolescent is presumed to be criminal. And the state patrol considers discussing with a minor her being photographed nude, to be communication with a minor for an immoral purpose.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#7)
    by chew2 on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    "One thing we don't need is stronger penalties for internet sex offenders and child pornography." I agree. Unfortunately there is a visceral disgust or yuck factor when the word "pedophile" is used, and even vindictive calls for the death penalty. Yet in some states I believe woman can marry as young as 14 and 15. We should distinguish between the really young children and the adolescents in our criminal policy. Why would a 14 year old be interested in a 55 year old man? Maybe he didn't tell her how old and fat he was.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    I don't know... Men are really really really beginning to make me sick...

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    lesspool-
    I don't know... Men are really really really beginning to make me sick...
    not sure exactly why, but just in case you did not know women have been known to prey on the young as well. Men do not have a monopoly on peversion however you want to define it.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    >Jeralyn, I was wondering what you think about suggestions that the >internet encourages child pornography. My feeling is that the >people who engage in such activities would do so with or without the >internet, The Internet has made dramatically easier the production and dissemination of "child pornography," and child pornography. Some people even have some images on their hard-drives without intending it, because they were browsing adult-oriented fetish links or even simply adult links. However, apart from that, the Internet provided a relatively anonymous way for many people to collect nudes of minors or other forms of child pornography. And, for several years, there even was a financial benefit to those who produced nudes of minors in certain countries such as Russia and Eastern Europe. The images being either legal or not prosecuted in their countries, or not yet prosecuted enabled the producers to set up websites to market their galleries. A lot of those websites that existed in years past no longer exist, but images from them still circulate, if by no other means than newsgroups. As for those who collect such images from the Internet, my guess is that the vast majority of them in fact would not be collecting images from the neighborhood. Of course, they would have purchased a book such as Age of Innocence by David Hamilton (nudes of minors, please see amazon.com) and other books by David Hamilton. They might have purchased books such as those by Jock Sturges or Sally Mann, still nudes of minors but not as erotically interesting as those of Hamilton. But . . . seducing minors into producing homemade neighborhood porn or meeting in back alleys a few feet from the local drug dealer to exchange photos? And doing this while seeming to be outwardly responsible and respectable and obtaining such positions as deputy press secretary of Homeland Security? No, a lot of people who would buy and appreciate Age of Innocence would not do other things to create the production and exchange of "child pornography." Most of those other things would be, in fact, too much work!! And, in addition to being "too much work," some or many of the Internet pedophiles wouldn't do things likely to harm the teens. A significant fraction of those who collect "child pornography" on the Net 1) don't believe in hurting minors; 2) don't believe that minors posing nude or in lingerie hurts them; 3) are not inclined to seduce a neighborhood kid. Consider Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland. He had a number of underage female friends and he photographed many of them clothed and some of them, with the permission of the girls and their parents, nude. Were they injured psychologically? Perhaps he should have been imprisoned for life for producing material sexually exploitative of minors? Back in the 1970s and early 80s, as the idea of child pornography as distinct from obscenity was being put forth, it wasn't the result of women coming forward to tell a harrowing tale of psychological trauma imposed on them when someone photographed their unwilling selves nude. It was because the religious right and moralists were upset that you could go to an adult bookstore and find books or magazines of images of minors nude or in lingerie. And, such images being generally not obscene, the states and the Dept of Justice invented a new way of prosecuting them. When the school photographer takes photos of an 8th grade cheerleader (or a 11th or 12th grade cheerleader, for that matter, all minors)in a skirt that covers half her thigh (or less in some places like San Diego county in previous years), is she injured by the awareness that someone thinks she is sexy or her figure is interesting? You would have to believe that if you believe the rationale put forth by the defenders of the child pornography legislation as it is currently written and applied. >so the internet is a positive thing >in this respect because it means we >can catch them. when it comes to images, I would guess that the states and federal government catch far fewer than might be "guilty." when it comes to seducing minors by means of a computer, I don't know. Since most of these guys being caught aren't the type that would wait around a playground to encounter an isolated teen minor, a lot of these criminals are "opportunistic." For most of these men caught, no internet access would have meant no crime or a lot less crime.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Punchy on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    Uh...and it gets worse: a lot worse Looks like it's an epidemic with these clowns. Good Lord.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    First of all, it's reported that Doyle contacted the girl -- in other words he initiated contact -- and also according to the report he believed her to be 14 and initiated a "sexually explicit" discussion with her the same day he first contacted her. Sorry, I don't care what her screen name was, if it's clear that she's 14, don't go there. This is blaming the victim, that a 14 year old with a provocative screen name is enticing grown men to do the wrong thing. No! That's like excusing an adult for having sex with a 14 year old because she led him on. Please. Girls that age dress and act provocatively because this culture encourages it and because they are becoming aware of their sexuality. Adults are adults. They should know enough not to allow an inappropriate relationship to develop, no matter how flirtatious or provocative the the girl behaves. Those who allow that to happen are committing a crime. And those who encourage or allow a minor to indirectly or unknowingly help them to get sexual kicks are using them as objects, very likely causing more harm than they think, breaking the law or walking a very fine line, and need help. Don't do it; it's wrong and does harm.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    For most of these men caught, no internet access would have meant no crime or a lot less crime.
    So it's all Al Gore's fault?

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steven Sanderson on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    "Ten minutes? Any guys want to weigh in on that one?" Pardon me, but I can't resist answering the question. Ten minutes for a guy to masturbate? Sure, if he's a conservative and doesn't have his magnifying glass and tweezers handy it might take him that long, or longer, to "find" himself and do the dirty deed.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    Shame on you all! I thought this was a progressive blog! First there is a long post blaming the FL Sheriff's Dept for the sting. And then comments agreeing and deciding that 14 year olds can get married (where?)so they can also be preyed upon. Suppose that it was a 14 yr old - that someone's 6th or 7th grade daughter was doing what adolescents do - trying to feel popular and validated so posted a profile on MySpace or whatever. And some funny uncle started sending dirty pictures and having internet sex with them. And trying to meet them for purposes of statutory rape. Sorry. Kids should be protected and if that means some cops put themselves out as bait so be it. This guy was wrong and he could have as easily been contacting a real 14 year old as a cop. As for porn - not too much harm in itself, in private. Except my kids were shown porn by a neighbor kid who found his dad's stash. My kids were injured by that. I think 6 and 10 are a bit young to see graphic fellatio..... So let's have some accountability. The guy is a perv and should be locked up. Who knows what else they'll find on his computer. This is serious stuff, let's blame the pervs, not the cops and the victims.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    Steven Sanderson-Ever read the section in Ulysses that got it banned. I think the scene took much longer than 10 minutes. How 'bout if we change the phrase to fondled himself, is 10 minutes still too long in your book?

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    not sure exactly why, but just in case you did not know women have been known to prey on the young as well. Men do not have a monopoly on peversion however you want to define it.
    case in point [TL:Please put links in html format, I fixed this one.]

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one April 5, 2006 01:30 PM
    For most of these men caught, no internet access would have meant no crime or a lot less crime.
    So it's all Al Gore's fault? And a boy named suo chimes in. Yeah, sure thing, sport.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    Too funny. Still can't quite get the hang of that newfangled "Quote" button. Not very Haley's Comet of you. Tip o' the day: there's a "Preview" button as well. Try it, you might like it.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:28:52 PM EST
    SUO, Tip of the day for you... This:
    So it's all Al Gore's fault?
    ... is a troll post.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    Oy vey. Does nobody have a sense of humor anymore? Do I have to spell it out for you? Sigh.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:37:13 PM EST
    Char and Mac-
    So it's all Al Gore's fault?
    I took it as a funny from SUO....not such a bad one either.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    As if. You're not worthy of quotation. I put Zaitzeff in quotes and you in italics by design, sport. They're infinitely brighter than you. Then again, one would be hard pressed to find someone who isn't.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    Thanks Squeaky. Some people...

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#25)
    by BigTex on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    If the state wants to go after him for distributing porn to a willing minor, that's a marginal call, but to be expected in southern states. The other charges of "use of a computer to seduce a child" seem to be bogus though. He didn't try to arrange a meeting with the "14 year old", so there was no threat. If LEO is aware enough of the case that they can pull it as far as it went, they should have the discretion to wait until the threat level becomes tangable. Talking dirty is inappropriate, but it's not an actual threat. SUO - it was a good one.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#26)
    by HK on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    zaitzeff, thanks for all the info and your view. It's given me a lot to think about. mmmoss, I agree that it was inappropriate for your kids to see those images, but on the issue of kids being groomed on the internet, I do think that parents need to take some responsibility. I am a parent and try to maintain open communication with my children that I hope will continue into their adolescence. By taking away the ability of paedophiles to impress a need for secrecy on kids, we are effectively blowing their cover. Because tracking down the paedophiles is only half the battle; we need to 'arm' the vulnerable minors they prey on. When children are of an age when they may have unsupervised access to the internet, they need to have already been educated about the ways in which it may be misused.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    You know what I love most about you Big Tex? It's that I know you are a religious guy and you do not go ballistic over this kind of stuff. My wife and I were sickened by the story but after reading your post I am sick but not outraged. Thanks for your posts. As an aside, I don't think you ever saw my apology for baiting the catholics with crude humor a year ago and wanted to make sure you had noticed I was no longer being a butthead. SUO - It was funny and thanks. I don't know where I stand on this legally at the moment, but morally I am creeped out. The fact that he works for DHS does not make it worse for me but the brazeness of his alleged actions is super creepy. This guy needs psychological help and I hope he gets it.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#28)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    So is this a thought crime?

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kevin Hayden on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    Ten minutes? Sorry, Jeralyn, methinks that's not an issue. There's many reasons I think ten minutes is in an easy realm of possibility. And a victim not having a stopwatch is just one of them.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    Jersulagic, read the post they are in there: It was a sting, perhaps he didn't know she was underage (the decoy was not). My post in no way presumed his guilt. I understand you are upset about my Duke posts, but get over it.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 06:25:29 PM EST
    There are children suffering beyond a reasonable doubt all over this great country of ours. We react as we do to stories like this because they force us out of our daily denial. Necessary or not, denial gets us comfortably through most of our lives.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#32)
    by BigTex on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    Jlvngstn thanks for the kind words. I hadn't seen your apology towards Catholics. Thanks for pointing it out after the fact.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    at the current time, when it comes to child pornography, anyone reading the news needs to remember that law enforcement and often the press often conflate two very different things. There is the child pornography that always has been illegal because it would always have been judged obscene. Then there is the "child pornography" which is such because your local churches think that teens under 18 should be able to pose nude or topless or in lingerie. An adult having sexual contact with a minor under a certain age, say 12 or 14 or 16, would always have been illegal and would have been judged obscene in the USA for the indefinite past. [remainder deleted due to length. This is the third excessively long post today. Please be respectful of bandwidth and just post your comment.]

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    There was a Nightline special a while back where they chronicled investigations just like this one only using a civilian group as the decoys, who then reported their contacts to the police. The link is pretty graphic, but if Florida LOE's did it in similar fashion the suspect made contact with the decoy first. Sad that it's an employee who holds what could be an important job related the security of our nation. You wouldn't have believed the Nightline special. I think one of the suspect was a local Rabbi. Crazy!

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#35)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    BTW, 10 minutes? Not to condone his actions, but did she stand there that long?

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    I must take partial exception to Jeralyn's description of Tampa. While Lakeland is similar to what I call the "old south" (my origins), it is only a tenth as racist, religious, and backwards as countless towns and suburbs I've visited in places like Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina. Furthermore, while Tampa may play host to a rabidly Conservative Fish Wrap..er..Tampa Tribune, spend any time here and you would see a great many parallels to Miami in terms of culture. The I-4 corridor is evenly divided between what the mainstream believes is Conservative and Liberal -- that is to say, they are all completely duped by the Corporate media in this regard. But a "bastion" of evangelical Conservatism? I think not.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:17:55 AM EST
    Dadler - Well said. The tribute vice pays to virtue? Check out Robert Bly's poem Anger at Children (not for the faint of heart) which fleshes out some the same track you seem to be on.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:27:32 AM EST
    Patrick, I think you're thinking of the NBC Dateline expose where one of the guys they had come into the 'house' was a rabbi. My tax dollars at work, folks.........

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:57:36 AM EST
    They'll 'find' Jesus and all will be forgiven.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#40)
    by Patrick on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:50:00 AM EST
    Dadler, It very well could have been. Dateline? Nightline? Still it was a very concerning show. I just wonder how much of it showbiz as opposed to reality.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    Ten minutes? Any guys want to weigh in on that one?
    About a week ago I conducted an informal study on a related topic. I personally find that masturbation is usually much faster than sex though.

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    I forgot to add, if you wish to fill in the poll, you'll need a LiveJournal account (but the're free if you don't already have one).

    Re: Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    Request for personal legal advice deleted. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.