Law abiding citizens to convicted felons

---

As the accused, I argue that using bait and switch tactics in proactive stings targeting Internet crimes against children is a clear violation of ethical and legal standards. They attempted to deceive me into believing that I was communicating with a minor when, in reality, I was talking to a law enforcement officer. I did not have a predisposition to commit this crime, and I firmly believe that I was entrapped by the use of deceptive tactics and Florida's mandatory requirement law.

I understand how challenging it is to prove entrapment in sex crimes cases because the prosecution only needs to demonstrate that I had a predisposition to commit the crime, and not that I had a history of similar offenses or inappropriate behavior. This made it difficult to successfully argue entrapment as a defense to the charges.

The consequences of being charged with Internet crimes against children and the use of bait and switch tactics are severe. I was imprisoned, fined, and left with the social stigma associated with being labeled a sex offender. Additionally, my personal and professional relationships were severely damaged, and my reputation was permanently tarnished.

I strongly believe that it was crucial for law enforcement agencies to follow ethical and legal standards, including the Operation Plan and ICAC Standards and Procedures, to ensure that the investigation was conducted in a fair and just manner. Using bait and switch tactics violated these standards and unfairly places innocent individuals like me in a position to face prosecution. As the accused, I firmly believe that these tactics should be highly discouraged to protect the integrity of the justice system and to ensure that individuals are not falsely accused and convicted. In my case, I was entrapped by attempting to comply with one law but charged under another.