It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents may face charges, hogtie 'predator' who wanted sex with 13-year-old daughter

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: DBCowboy

A friend will help you move..a best friend will help you move a body.


Hey, I think they made a movie about this, it was called........

"Nightmare on Elm Street" !!





posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The mom lured (so invited) the man there then they attack him. That seems to make them the law breakers at that point.


wow dude, you're rooting for the child predator?

Deleting account asap. I know what's on these boards now.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

Whatever in the world makes you think I'd be stupid enough to do any sort of planning on line, or via any sort of electronic device?

If I ever set out to kill someone, a very unlikely scenario, I'm certainly not going to share it on social media... C'mon.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

Oh behave lol



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: DBCowboy

A friend will help you move..a best friend will help you move a body.


What body?





posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep, the RCMP are useless, the family called them ahead of time, saying this POS was coming over..they said no thanks.
Should of snuffed him and left the police out of it.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




What body?

Exactly



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Though the intent was innocently motivated, the execution however was misguided.

Innocently motivated? I'm not so sure.

They wanted the police to give them the name of the guy, so when they talked to the police they were already planing something against the guy. Then they lure him home, attack him and transmit the whole thing on the Internet.

To me it sounds more like they were more interested in acting as vigilantes than doing the right thing.

PS: before someone asks, no, I don't have kids.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP


"When you can't do something smart, do something right."
-Jayne



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: roadgravel
The mom lured (so invited) the man there then they attack him. That seems to make them the law breakers at that point.


wow dude, you're rooting for the child predator?

Deleting account asap. I know what's on these boards now.



Try reading all my posts without your preconceived bias. I was pointing out how the lady screwed up and made it worse.

Par for the forum.
edit on 4/16/2018 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I will make no apologies for my statement if it were my child.

The ground is soft enough and I know a guy with a back-hoe. They'd never had found the body.



I couldn't have said it better., DB. As a parent and grandparent, I believe that there are a few (very few, actually) situations where it becomes necessary to simply take someone out of the game permanently. Immediately or as quickly as possible. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I mean with extreme prejudice, using any means necessary.

As distasteful as it is, this is one of those situations.

Down here, we refer to that as "Keeping it in the family".



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: pteridine

A pickup. A tarp. A shovel. A shotgun. An alibi.


What are things people do in Arkansas on a Friday night Alex?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarfbot
jeez sad all around. hopefully they dont wind up losing their house to this creep in a civil suit.

or lose custody of their kids..


I hope they lose it all. I have a very poor view of vigilantees.

The guy is completely innocent here. He was lured to a house under false pretenses and found himself the victim of a premeditated assault.

Such things cannot be allowed to stand in civilized society. I'm honestly surprised at how many people here are advocating murder for a pedo, when we don't even know he's a pedo because the parents meddled with the status of the relationship between their daughter and the guy.
edit on 16-4-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: DBCowboy

A friend will help you move..a best friend will help you move a body.


What body?


haha spat my drink everywhere! Btw Is that you?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Osirisvset



I'm not that skinny.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Pretty sure this is called unlawful detainment.
Penal code and not a light felony.
It's about the same as a kidnapping.
Mom and Pop not to bright at all.

I see the lynch mob mentallity is still
Plugged in and juiced up in my country.
Things got pretty good when dragnet
was still on. But nobody seems to know
Shlt anymore.
edit on Rpm41618v42201800000045 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well... This is a difficult one.

On the one hand, the RCMP entirely failed to impress upon the parents that not only was an investigation taking place, but that the cretin they were watching, would be clapped in irons the very second he even so much as farted in the wrong direction. In a scenario like this, it is absolutely imperative that the authorities communicate with the parents in detail, about exactly what measures are being taken to prevent a reported threat to their child, from manifesting into an actual incident. Any reasonable parent, being given the correct and detailed information which would lead to their comfort and knowledge that their child is being actively kept safe by ongoing and constant surveillance on the target, would stand down and permit the law enforcement community to perform its function. What happened here however, seems to have been that the parents were given a boiler plate response by the RCMP, which did nothing whatsoever to disperse their fear for the safety of their child, and the fault for that, lays squarely at the door of the law enforcement community.

However... as utterly understandable as their actions are to any person who happens to have a child of their own, and the right stuff about them in terms of protective instinct, the plan hatched by the parents in this situation involved a deliberate entrapment, from a legal perspective, and it is difficult to see what method they could have used to achieve a capture, that would not have involved entrapping the suspect in some way. While I have absolutely no concern whatever for the feelings, the liberty or the right to due process that a confirmed predator of this nature encounters when faced with capture or rough treatment, from the perspective of the courts boxes must be ticked, i's dotted and t's crossed, before successful legal action can be taken against any criminal entity. Without bypassing due process, there is no way this offender could have been put through a court proceeding, based on what happened at the house of his target, without that legal proceeding failing entirely to achieve its goals, and furthermore, any attempt to force him through the system into a jail cell, could have resulted in his legal representatives being able to:

a) Secure his release on a technicality (of which there would be several, given the nature of his capture by the parents and the entrapment of the suspect by them)

b) Make any future legal action against him more likely to fail, perhaps by way of his legal team arguing before a judge that the treatment he had already received was tantamount to harassment by the police, as a result of their frustration with not being able to secure a clean conviction the first time

c) Produce a situation where the suspect is considered by law enforcement untouchable from a legal standpoint, because no judge will be willing to rule against him, given the history of unlawful or technically incorrect treatment of the suspect by the police and the courts in attempting to try him, after the entrapment by the parents, and the subsequent likelihood that any ruling against him would be more prone than most, to be overturned or quashed on a technicality later, which, although we know to be utterly unimportant, makes prosecutors very nervous.

Now, I will grant you, that none of what I have written in these examples are what I would call, good reasons not to press forward with charges against the individual in question, because no matter how it happens, scum like that should either be in a concrete box with a metal door on it, or a pine box under the earth, and that is just how it damned well is, regardless of what the ridiculous and broken thing that passes for law says of the matter. But realistically speaking, that is simply how the system works, and for all that it is a mess and should not work that way, that is how it is in the world these days, and there is nothing that can be done to change that rapidly enough to effect this case or how it shakes out.

But I have to turn once again to the police here...

They told the parents to delete the messages, and forget about it, according to the parents. The RCMP protest this report of events, suggesting instead that they actually referred to an investigation being conducted of the suspect. Personally, I am inclined to believe the parents over the RCMP, if only because police officers rarely speak in terms which feel like a press release to read, unless there is a camera in their face. It is far more likely that the parents were indeed instructed to forget about it, than it ever is that they were properly informed of the status of the investigation into the suspect, or that they were given any information which amounted to reassurance that their daughter would not have to worry about being accessed by this individual again. This whole event therefore, in my view, is on them, not the parents. This is the order of events, which should have occurred as a result of the parents report of the communication between the suspect and their child.

First, the police should have taken details from the phone, using computer forensics methods to access its memory, copy the data under chain of evidence, and maybe even retain the phone as evidence itself. This might have been inconvenient to the child and parents, requiring that a new device be acquired for the childs use, but given the severity of the situation, I am sure they would have been ok with that.

Second, the suspect should have been identified by way of the user information attached to the message he sent.

Third, once identification of the sender was established, the investigation should have moved into the surveillance realm, involving actual physical surveillance, and a warrant being sought by the police on the basis of probable cause, from a judge, permitting them to utilise their anti-cybercrime systems and experts, for the purpose of accessing the suspects computer to recover any further evidence of criminal behaviour.

Fourth, upon receipt of that warrant, the police should have deployed all available resources to do as suggested above, and upon receipt of the information sought by deployment of those resources, arrested the suspect, and charged him with offenses as appropriate to their findings.

But all they did as far as the childs parents know, was tell them to destroy evidence and forget the incident. That is utterly unacceptable. Communication and information flowing from investigators to victims and witnesses, is VITAL in cases like these, and I am certain the parents would have been far more reasonable than they were, if they had been treated as anything more than an inconvenience by the RCMP officers they were in contact with.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Sounds like they were attempting vigilante justice. Setting up a criminal with the intent to harm them is an equally vile act. It's not a person's job to take the law into their own hands and decide guilt and punishments this is why we have courts. You report it to the police allow them to put toget her a case. Odds are very good they ruined the case against the pedophile because he's going to argue he was set up and assaulted. I know emotions run high when one deals with children but that doesn't mean you get to throw out the rule of law.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

While I agree with you in so far as the only way to secure convictions is to follow the law and permit the law enforcement community to follow their playbook in these matters, I think it is worth pointing out that it is also the task of law enforcement to ensure that they make efforts to comfort and reassure victims and their families, that their concerns are being dealt with rigorously.

If the parents account of matters is to be believed (and given that it is a damned sight more believable than the statement made by the RCMP, theirs is the account more likely to have actually occurred), they were being left with the impression that the police wanted the matter to go away. That impression is one which the RCMP are responsible for, and in the scenario where a parent is left to feel that they have been abandoned by the authorities, and that the authorities intend no further action, a parent is left with a stark choice. Do nothing and hope that nothing happens to their child, or make damned sure that the potential threat is bought into the light, for all to see, in a way the authorities cannot ignore.

The fault here lays squarely at the door of the RCMP, for failing the parents of the child who was at risk.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Quite the conundrum, the parents attempted to illegally capture him and try to have him legally punished.... Pretty silly if you look at it that way, if your going to break the law best to avoid the law being involved if possible.







 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join