Parents lose custody of children for a month after innocent bathtime photos developed at Walmart

page: 12
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
On another note, it always surprises me that often when I watch Americas Funniest Videos, there are numerous clips of naked children (often peeing accidents) that even though they have been blurred for TV, the originals must be pretty explicit....strange but I never seem to hear anyone going on about those clips?

Not only that but based on today's overly PC world, there are plenty that would appear to border on child abuse / endangerment.

For that matter, it won't be long before someone decides to go through Youtube clips, as there are no doubt plenty of similar like to AFV ther, and have those removed...




posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


how effing insane. Why the hell would a pedo family take their pics to be developed? omg, pedos have their own printers etc

effing stupid idiots... pathetic really when you consider the amount of reports that are sent in of real pedos and nothing is done.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



It was a month before the girls were returned to their parents, after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled the photographs were in fact harmless and a medical exam revealed no signs of sexual abuse.


The fact that they had a 'medical exam' is most disturbing to me...



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
The pictures shouldn't have been taken to begin with. And this never would have happened.

And then since they were, they should have never taken them to Wal-Mart and this never would have happened. But we have to have low prices in our shopping don't we?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Creep Thumper
People shouldn't be taking naked pictures of their children in the first place.


What planet are you from? There is a huge difference between simple nudity and pornography. This is a matter of people and the state sticking their nose in where it does not belong.

Puritanical attitudes toward the human body are what breeds perverts in the first place.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by ollncasino
 

pathetic really when you consider the amount of reports that are sent in of real pedos and nothing is done.



Exactly how many are sent in that nothing is done about?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
My mother has a photo of me when I was 2 years old sitting in a bubble bath. No one did anything to her for this, and thank God that back then people still had innocent minds until the evil people were proven to be guilty.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by ollncasino
 

pathetic really when you consider the amount of reports that are sent in of real pedos and nothing is done.



Exactly how many are sent in that nothing is done about?


no not sent into walmart ... but pedos on the street and they are reported but so many loop holes in the system, they walk and there are many incidences where a child has been placed in the system and welfare stuffs it up and the child is left in danger.

sad.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
On another note, it always surprises me that often when I watch Americas Funniest Videos, there are numerous clips of naked children (often peeing accidents) that even though they have been blurred for TV, the originals must be pretty explicit....strange but I never seem to hear anyone going on about those clips?

Not only that but based on today's overly PC world, there are plenty that would appear to border on child abuse / endangerment.

For that matter, it won't be long before someone decides to go through Youtube clips, as there are no doubt plenty of similar like to AFV ther, and have those removed...


Heh I thought about that exact same thing as well today. They better leave that show alone... i actually like it.

Wonder what some people would think about the photo of my brother aged 2 standing on my dads motorbikes fuel tank, leaning over, hands on the handle bars wearing nothing but the skin on his bones, the bikes crash helmet and giant leather motorbike gloves... and his dummy (pacifier) in his mouth.

But hey, he was playing with a bucket of water while my dad worked on and washed his bike and it was a hot summers day (ahck sun burned babys flesh, child abuse!... hey there was no such ting as sun screen damn it) ... he looked a hoot so mum took a pic of him in a silly situation. Nothing weird about it, and we have a photo we can always bring up to make him go red


... or the pic with me and my brother at Christmas aged 2 and 5 in nothing but our underpants and nappies and he's giving me a whooping purple nerple while two grandparents sit blurry and befuddled in the background... toddler exhibition bdsm!


Wont someone think of the children!.. hmm think ive devoted to much mental energy on this today.


Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
The fact that they had a 'medical exam' is most disturbing to me...


How much do you want to bet that in the far flung future one of the kids as an adult sitting in a psychologists chair will mistakenly equate the exam to some long forgotten childhood sexual abuse...

So really, guess we can just hope the couple get whats owed them and their kids never even remember this blip of human stupidity in their life and they all get back to a normal regular life together lamenting the downward spiral of society asap.
edit on 10-3-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The parents sound pretty stupid. CVS has a kiosk for developing pictures and ONLY you see them. Letting the people at walmart see the naked pics of your kids is just stupid. They CAN see the pictures, hello, stupid parents, maybe you should lose them for a month and give the parents time to wise up some.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Seems to me that some people still have misplaced faith in "the system".

Why do some people rob banks? Because that's where the money is. Likewise, if some sicko perv wants to get at little kiddies, where would be the first places to look? Organizations that offer relatively unfettered access to them en masse, especially if those organizations have the full trust and support of the parents (or the community in general) who would not suspect a thing.

True story: When I worked for the county sheriff's office, a lieutenant diaper dick (I'm sorry, "juvenile detective") was outright busted using the state's computers to arrange a "meeting" with a young boy down in Georgia. Nothing criminal was ever brought up against him, because he was very well-connected and was on the board of Police & Fire Commissioners in his hometown. So the disgusting d-bag got a pass with just being fired. Not more than a couple weeks later, his wife outright busted him trying the same BS again (from his home computer this time) and he was essentially driven out of town with divorce proceedings on the way (not sure why it took the 2nd incident, but w/e). Who knows how long this kind of thing had been going on... I mean, who would ever suspect?

It just baffles me that in this day and age of rampant lying, secrecy, and corruption, how anyone can just blindly trust total strangers without even a shred of skepticism when it comes to matters such as this. These Wal-Mart wunderkinds may have been under pressure to report any minor little thing they happened to see, or they might have thought that they were doing their best to "protects teh children" (and subsequently be touted as heroes) however the reality is that they exposed these kids to an unbelievable amount of risk and unnecessary trauma, and I sincerely hope when (not if) the parents win their case, that they pay a little bit of that settlement forward to help other kids who are in abusive situations and are struggling to find some help.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SubSea
 


FINALLY!! Thank you - somebody needed to say it. Let's say it again.

Puritanical attitudes toward the human body are what breeds perverts in the first place.

Let that sink in, Christians...



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hah, when some employee felt offended by the pictures, better ask, who is the one with dirty subconscioussness? Clearly the one who felt offended by the pictures, otherwise it would be accepted as normal.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by shapur
reply to post by ollncasino
 

I have heard from a friend of mine that there are some sites which expose children and they make tons of money by selling the pictures and movies to their clients!...You cant blame people to be a little suspicious of nude kiddy pictures.
I assume you have no children of your own. Only people with no kids could be suspicious of pics like that.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by wingsfan
Just when you think you finally seen it all in another thread, then you get this. What flipping planet does someone come from that doesn't know about these types of family photos? We can assume the wal-mart worker was of suspect IQ, that goes without saying, but law enforcement actual carrying out medical exams for abuse? And then putting them on the registry?

All involved should be sued to hell in back, then sued again for ruining our country with this endless insanity.



When did YOU see the photos in question? Now all of you are judging the worker and her bosses and the child protective persons all in the wrong and YOU never saw the photos in question!
Oh be quiet. You haven't seen the pictures either, idiot. But the judge has, and deemed them innocent. But you know more than a judge, right?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Creep Thumper
People shouldn't be taking naked photos of their kids. It's weird.

What is the purpose? A picture with their clothes on isn't good enough?
Again, you obviously don't have kids , or you wouldn't be making such a ridiculous observation. I'm guessing you're about 14.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
To all the fools who think these parents were taking sexual photos of their kids, have you considered this question:

If the photographs were sexual in nature, WHY would the parents have them developed at Wal Mart for Christ's sake??



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
$75000 is that all? What happened to the innocent shots that we can embarrass our kids on their 18th and 21st? Shame on Walmart for letting it get that far. And if the attendant was actually shocked at the photos, wait till you see my photo album, me and a few other cousins all under 10, many half naked/naked.. So much more innocent then today.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
edit on 10-3-2013 by IBelieveInAliens because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join