Internet Luring - 2 Cases, 2 different outcomes

2 Internet child luring cases that occurred recently ended with 2 very interesting outcomes.

In the first case, a police officer was charged for trying to "communicate with a minor" for some sort of evil deed. The undercover officer who busted him was found to be guilty of luring since the evidence showed that the accused officer repeatedly turned down girls who claimed to be under-aged. In the end, it sounds like the cop harassed him into the communications that occurred, and that in no way did the officer try to "persuade" the apparently under-aged teen.

In the second case, a man is charged with a similar offense for chatting up a 13 year old boy for some extra-curricular grown-up activities. The accused argued that the boy's profile stated that he was 18 years old. However, in chat transcripts, the boy repeatedly told him that he was actually 13. The accuse states that he did not believe the boy was under-aged because of *unverified* profile information, and that the boy typed much too fast to be so young.

Isn't it obvious? If you are hitting on someone online, and then they tell you repeatedly that they are under-aged.... isn't that a sign to RUN AWAY FROM THEM? Such acts of willful blindness have rarely convinced the courts, and certainly this one wasn't fooled.

In the first case, the accused appears to have been pressured and entrapped. In the second, the accused seems to have been exercising a textbook case of confirmation bias.