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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   
They should have just alerted the cops and told them he is on his way now and let them deal with it.

Although that being in hindsight, the parents did what they felt was necessary to protect their daughter.




posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The people who hunt kids?


The people who hunt pedo's. It is absolutely disgusting. Every single one of them should be in jail.

Hunting down, luring, and beating up (or worse) anyone because you think you've tricked them into committing a crime is not healthy behavior, and should not be tolerated in society.


So you fancy your self a protector of pedophiles. I understand where your coming from in this thread now, my apologies.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So she did not invite the man as the mother, then she confronted him as he went to her daughter's room. Not as he came to the door, as he went to the room. Nowhere does it say they just opened the door and let him into the house, or they would have confronted him at the door or outside.

That's what I said, there's some crucial information missing. Did they leave the door open? Did someone opened the door to let him in? Did someone told him where the girl's room was? Without knowing the answers to these questions we cannot know how things really happened, we can only create our own versions of the events, and reaching conclusions not based on facts is the best way of being wrong.


Why are those questions important?

Sure the whole story could be totally bogus and maybe the guy thought he was going there to have sex with a 75 year old man and the live streamers made up the whole story and dont even have a 13 year old daughter.... I guess that is possible and we wont know until we see the text messages and see the 13 year old testify in court.

But if we accept the basics of the story are correct. That the 13 year old exists, that the president initialy went to the police regarding an online predator taking to their 13 year old over text ... then the finer details are again a bit irrelevant.

Did they leave the door open? ... my door is open from time to time, its open right now. That is not an invitation to come in and start walking up the stairs to where my children are sleeping.

Did someone opened the door to let him in? ... highly unlikely, why would a predator enter a home when the door open to him was opened by an adult. Unless the mom can pass off as a convincing 13 year old.

Did someone told him where the girl's room was? ... does it matter? If he had planned to search the whole house and started with the upstairs does it change the story? But it's also reasonable to assume that who he thought was a 13 year old girl told him where her room was via the text message invitingly him over.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Why are those questions important?

Because they may be used against them or not.


Sure the whole story could be totally bogus and maybe the guy thought he was going there to have sex with a 75 year old man and the live streamers made up the whole story and dont even have a 13 year old daughter.... I guess that is possible and we wont know until we see the text messages and see the 13 year old testify in court.

I didn't say that.


But if we accept the basics of the story are correct. That the 13 year old exists, that the president initialy went to the police regarding an online predator taking to their 13 year old over text ... then the finer details are again a bit irrelevant.

I suppose that word was a result of too many political discussions...
But I don't think finer details are irrelevant, as although we know that the mother went to the police we don't know what she told them. We know from what she said latter that she was expecting the police to give her the name of the man, and that may give the man a way of appearing even more as a victim. (The fact that he was maybe doing an illegal action doesn't mean he cannot be a victim of another illegal action)


Did they leave the door open? ... my door is open from time to time, its open right now. That is not an invitation to come in and start walking up the stairs to where my children are sleeping.

Inviting someone and leaving the door open is not the same thing as leaving the door open and someone that was not invited enters.


Did someone opened the door to let him in? ... highly unlikely, why would a predator enter a home when the door open to him was opened by an adult. Unless the mom can pass off as a convincing 13 year old.

Did someone told him where the girl's room was? ... does it matter? If he had planned to search the whole house and started with the upstairs does it change the story? But it's also reasonable to assume that who he thought was a 13 year old girl told him where her room was via the text message invitingly him over.

Once again, we don't know what happened. It's possible that the door was open, nobody was behind it and the man entered the house looking for the girl's bedroom. It's also possible that the message the mother sent telling the man to go to her house also said that the door was opened and the location of the room. It's also possible (although less likely) that the woman opened the door and told the man where the girl's room was, stranger things have happened.

All those details can be used in favour or against the family to show they had the intention of attacking the man.

We know that the police were warned that there was a meeting arranged, as they told the woman not to go forward with it, so the police should be alert to the possibility of meeting really happening, so the police should, at least, have thought that there was the potential for a crime being committed from each side of the question, the man attacking the girl or the mother attacking the man.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The more that I think about it, I guess the more that this falls under the kidnapping laws.

I mean, without researching it, the guy technically didn't do anything wrong, he just had the intent to do something wrong (unless attempted sexual contact with a minor is a thing up there). Intent isn't really a prosecutable thing by itself, so the assault, then restraining without an actual crime having been committed would probably be why the parents, legally speaking, are now in possible hot water.

I would have helped them, though, so...



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Yuck what kind of freak would do that? Seriously? Someone who needs a good metal boot to the head. Now I know why I hate society this is why. I think all Women should wear steel toed boots so they can kick the # out of Assholes that deserve it.
edit on 18-4-2018 by BotheLumberJack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
nm...issue dealt with
edit on 18-4-2018 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Awesome. hi-5 JohnnyCanuck!



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
So you fancy your self a protector of pedophiles. I understand where your coming from in this thread now, my apologies.


Everyone gets due process, it's the unpopular crimes where it's most important to remember that.

Baiting people into committing a crime is not due process, the person who tempts is even more guilty than the tempted.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

As a parent of 4, & I hope I don't get in trouble for this, but.....THIS WOUKD NEVER GET TO COURT...HE WOULD DISAPPEAR(if ya know what I mean).....



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Baiting people into committing a crime is not due process, the person who tempts is even more guilty than the tempted.

Agreed, it would cause issues with the court case, but here in the UK many hundreds of paedo's are being caught and imprisoned as a direct result of paedo-hunters. They set up fake profiles and wait for the paedo's to incriminate themselves asking for sex. They make it clear the profile is a child, they don't invite any meetings etc, but when the paedo's ask to meet up they agree, then detain them as any citizen can.

Lot's of prosecutions as a result of the hunters, just search "youtube paedo sting uk" it is fascinating, and totally legal.
...and sorry, but if you disagree with that then you do seem to be defending paedo's.

EDIT
Here you go...


edit on 18-4-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I won't argue that it's legal, the hunters would have been arrested by now if it weren't. I think it's an unhealthy behavior for a society to have such little faith in it's police system though that it looks to entrap and hunt down criminals.

Just because the crime is offensive doesn't mean we should throw out common sense, reason, and tact in dealing with it.

I wonder what the conviction rate is like for these operations opposed to actual police action. If it's low, I would argue that they're just harassing citizens under the guide of hunting down criminals.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DanDanDat
So you fancy your self a protector of pedophiles. I understand where your coming from in this thread now, my apologies.


Everyone gets due process, it's the unpopular crimes where it's most important to remember that.

Baiting people into committing a crime is not due process, the person who tempts is even more guilty than the tempted.


This person will have his day in court. He will get his due procces.

When that happens "I was tricked into trying to molest a little girl" should not be seen as an acceptable defence.

I can perhaps accept that "Baiting people into a crime" is morally questionable. But to think that "Baiting people into a crime" is even MORE guilt than "Attempting to mollest a little girl" is a strange kind of sick. There are very few actions in life that are MORE guilty than "Attempting to mollest a little girl" defending your daughter from that molestation isnt one of them.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I won't argue that it's legal, the hunters would have been arrested by now if it weren't. I think it's an unhealthy behavior for a society to have such little faith in it's police system though that it looks to entrap and hunt down criminals.
It's more a sign of the savage budget cuts our police services have faced over the last few years. Tens of thousands of fewer constables.


Just because the crime is offensive doesn't mean we should throw out common sense, reason, and tact in dealing with it.
Agreed. The majority of paedo hunters in the UK as you'll see on youtube follow common sense, reason, and the law.


I wonder what the conviction rate is like for these operations opposed to actual police action. If it's low, I would argue that they're just harassing citizens under the guide of hunting down criminals.

Overwhelmingly high from everything I've read.
...and if you think catching people who solicit sex with someone they believe to be a child is harrassment, then yes, you are a paedo sympathiser.
Soliciting a child for sex is an imprisonable offence in the UK. How can you not support legal citizen efforts to lock these dangerous scum away?



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Why are those questions important?

Because they may be used against them or not.


Sure the whole story could be totally bogus and maybe the guy thought he was going there to have sex with a 75 year old man and the live streamers made up the whole story and dont even have a 13 year old daughter.... I guess that is possible and we wont know until we see the text messages and see the 13 year old testify in court.

I didn't say that.


But if we accept the basics of the story are correct. That the 13 year old exists, that the president initialy went to the police regarding an online predator taking to their 13 year old over text ... then the finer details are again a bit irrelevant.

I suppose that word was a result of too many political discussions...
But I don't think finer details are irrelevant, as although we know that the mother went to the police we don't know what she told them. We know from what she said latter that she was expecting the police to give her the name of the man, and that may give the man a way of appearing even more as a victim. (The fact that he was maybe doing an illegal action doesn't mean he cannot be a victim of another illegal action)


Did they leave the door open? ... my door is open from time to time, its open right now. That is not an invitation to come in and start walking up the stairs to where my children are sleeping.

Inviting someone and leaving the door open is not the same thing as leaving the door open and someone that was not invited enters.


Did someone opened the door to let him in? ... highly unlikely, why would a predator enter a home when the door open to him was opened by an adult. Unless the mom can pass off as a convincing 13 year old.

Did someone told him where the girl's room was? ... does it matter? If he had planned to search the whole house and started with the upstairs does it change the story? But it's also reasonable to assume that who he thought was a 13 year old girl told him where her room was via the text message invitingly him over.

Once again, we don't know what happened. It's possible that the door was open, nobody was behind it and the man entered the house looking for the girl's bedroom. It's also possible that the message the mother sent telling the man to go to her house also said that the door was opened and the location of the room. It's also possible (although less likely) that the woman opened the door and told the man where the girl's room was, stranger things have happened.

All those details can be used in favour or against the family to show they had the intention of attacking the man.

We know that the police were warned that there was a meeting arranged, as they told the woman not to go forward with it, so the police should be alert to the possibility of meeting really happening, so the police should, at least, have thought that there was the potential for a crime being committed from each side of the question, the man attacking the girl or the mother attacking the man.


Haha yes to many post about the president... I'll have to clear my autotext.

Also I realize you didn't say the part about the 75 year old man. That was my point at which the finer details become relevant... when the events in the article are completely wrong then the those points become relevant. A) "the man was there to meet at 13 year old girl" or B) "the man was there to meet someone other than a 13 year old girl" ... if he was there to meet a 13 year old girl than "the door being open" or "how he knew where her room was" or even "what the mom asked of the police" are all irrelevant to the fact that the man was there to meet a 13 year old girl.

Some of your points might be good to explain why the parents where arrested; and they will no doubt be important to the whether or not the parents are convicted of assault. Its clear the parents made a few mistakes in this exchange. But the unanswered questions they don't come close to posibly explaining away the mans actions.
edit on 18-4-2018 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I won't argue that it's legal, the hunters would have been arrested by now if it weren't. I think it's an unhealthy behavior for a society to have such little faith in it's police system though that it looks to entrap and hunt down criminals.

Just because the crime is offensive doesn't mean we should throw out common sense, reason, and tact in dealing with it.

I wonder what the conviction rate is like for these operations opposed to actual police action. If it's low, I would argue that they're just harassing citizens under the guide of hunting down criminals.


..they're just harassing citizens who showed up with the intent to molest children ...

Let's make that clear



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

..they're just harassing citizens who showed up with the intent to molest children ...

Let's make that clear

I know, I'm actually shocked anyone would use the term 'harrass' regarding catching paedo's who contact children for sex on social media. That's some special kind of sick.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think it's an unhealthy behavior for a society to have such little faith in it's police system though that it looks to entrap and hunt down criminals.

Ummmm...it's perfectly healthy for a society to not always feel that it can only rely on government entities to police itself. The opposite--solely relying on said government entities, especially in the face of them having sub-par reactions--is unhealthy behavior.


Just because the crime is offensive doesn't mean we should throw out common sense, reason, and tact in dealing with it.


Well, that wasn't done here, IMO, soooo...subjectivity?


I wonder what the conviction rate is like for these operations opposed to actual police action. If it's low, I would argue that they're just harassing citizens under the guide of hunting down criminals.

But apparently you don't know, so it's a moot point unless you're willing to figure it out on your own. Again...subjectivity.

Like I said, this probably falls under the elements of a kidnapping charge, the way that they went about doing it, but that doesn't mean that such a charge would be just in this case. Entrapment only exists if the subject didn't seek out the illegal activity; from what I understand, it's fairly obvious that not only did the suspect seek it out, but also was seeking it out with other victims, too.

Hey, make sure that when you're out in public and you see a guy beating his kid, don't do anything about it, because police exist.

Sure, the parents could have just did what the police apparently told them to do, but honestly, now this dude's face and name are plastered all over the internet world-wide for the piece of scum that he is.

THAT is justice...subjectively speaking, of course.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well put

The paedo hunters here are well supported by all the community. They follow the law, don't set a trap aside from a fake profile on social media acting innocent. Honestly, when you read some of the transcripts of the predators to what they believe are 12 year old girlls, it's sickening. Coercion, threats even, vile grooming at it's worst.

Two were caught in my town, I watched one live on facebook, both convicted, both prison.
Soliciting a child for sex and arranging to meet said child is illegal in the UK.
The paedo hunters are doing a fantastic job keeping kids safe online and catching them, even our under resourced police now support them so long as they stay within the law. Some constabularies are even considering closer working, training, and accreditation the paedo problem is so bad.



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Entrapment or not, I would like to hear what charges will be applied to the proposed victim, for child luring an even endangerment should not be ignored by the court even if it entrapment.

Hell, you could even a large big gaurd dog, with a ton of large signs saying "beware" of it. And if a goon or two got a hint of bravery...or stupidity, an broke in ether stealing property or some innocent girls virginity, and of the dog ate them.

They put the dog down and your the one who gets sued. It happened before, there was even a story years ago where a burglar was trying to break in from the roof, but fell through the glass.

He sued the owner apparently.




top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join