Avi Dubitzky did not invent the method of impersonating a minor and set a trap for a "pedophile"
In 2007, Channel 10 produced a television program during which they tracked down men who use the Internet to have sexual contact with minors. Investigators on their behalf entered Tabzigot chat rooms themselves as a 13-year-old girl. References were quick to arrive. People came to the girl’s house. The cameras recorded everything and as soon as the men felt comfortable in the minor’s home, the journalist Dov Gilhar went outside to them and presented them with the articles and photos that the same men had sent to the 13-year-old girl. After a conversation with Dov Gilhar, the men were detained for questioning by the police and later a number of indictments were filed. A delusional judge named Dan Moore, (who is no longer a judge) determined that Channel 10 acted improperly and the state appealed his conclusions, and won, stating that the person who initiates the sexual discourse is Guilty and there is no place to make allegations against Channel 10.
As mentioned, Judge Moore’s conclusions were canceled. Moore established a. who was a cynical exploiter of human weakness,
B. the things were done in the virtual and anonymous realm and therefore, are not valid offenses,
C. The suspect could not tell if he was talking to a minor, and a court determined that the suspect’s actions did not go beyond preparation and, in any case, did not reach any experience.
The district court accepted the appeal and determined that the accused should be punished.
That is why the question is asked. What is the difference between Channel 10’s investigation and Avi Dubitzky’s activity? Before you is a decision of the district court.
The sentence and the conviction of the suspects in the Channel 10 case Girls in danger case 28059-03-10
