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

page: 15
64
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I hope they sue the living ---- out of them. I mean putting someone of the "sex offenders list" or in the "criminal sexual database"... I hope they get a pretty penny for this.

-SAP-




posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by Hijinx


I have to say though, mothers, grandmothers stop taking pics of kids in the tub. I know it's harmless, but it drives those of us who have to have that sit down years later absolute bat # crazy. Why take pics of us in the tub?



?

Thinking and talking like that is as sick and twisted to me as actual sex offenders tbh.


Someone needs to lay off the wine. I have no clue how this can be misconstrued as anything close to a sex offender. I don't understand the obsession of women with taking pics of their kids in the tub. Take pics of your kids, have those memories, but bath time? Isn't that supposed to be a private thing?


Only a perverted mind can be of the opinion that it is not right to photograph their own toddlers during bathtime. I cant remember ever having the concept of sex pop up in such a situation. Something is seriously wrong with you either way if you think like that which you do , otherwise you would not have made a point out of it.

How about the moments in which parents do not photograph their kid(s) during bath time. I am sure they did not wear blindfolds so the only difference would be that they did not record it but, they still viewed the... "Pornographic material" which would be just as bad and illegal, if it were indeed to be considered pornographic. If not illegal then those parents are still somehow morally wrong following your kind of reasoning unless of course they wore blindfolds during bath time. Or is it now somehow ok to experience porno with your own kids as long as it is not photographed?

I am sure someone will utter the words "but but ..that is different" not really , the content and the situation was pornographic or not simple as that.


It is pretty obvious that those pictures of those parents in the OP were not of pornographic nature nor intended to be as such. Otherwise they would not have brought it to walmart for development and the judge in the courtroom would not have ruled the pictures to be of innocent nature.

By now of course those children had been away from home for a month (any idea how long that feels like for a little one?) and they have been prodded and poked by adults during genital and anal examinations by the time they got back home.

We need to protect children from sex offenders AND people who see perversion in everything



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonyWarp
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.


42 !


..i think !!


edit on 10-3-2013 by Rubic0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 

secular humanism and moral relativity
dictate that what parents do in their
homes in no one else's business.
Even if they do take photos of the activity.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
A real pedophile would NEVER take them somewhere to get developed!!!! I am sure they own all their own equipment says common sense.

Parents nowadays should just make sure to take photos of their babies from the waist up only......These parents obviously did not consider how a stranger would view them, why? Because the parents are innocent.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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


Even more to the point, why take pictures of them nude? What's to gain by it? I know if my mother ever showed naked pics of me when I was a kid I would be furious. There's just no need for it.


You were born nude.


Be furious with god ?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
How crazy is it that NATURIST MATERIAL is NOT ILLEGAL to create or own (protected by Amendment), and are no doubt far more explicit than what these family snaps were???

The do gooders should have their hands full just going through all the that material, and tracking back to the photographers and parents, that participated!

There's also all the David Hamilton 'artistic' underage nudes, that are deemed legal to view and own...

As I also mentioned earlier, what about all the submitted 'naked kids' videos to AFV, that are on hundreds of episodes?

Makes no sense that on one hand 'worse' material is made freely available, yet innocent families are caught up in this sort of BS!

There IS a CONSPIRACY afoot, to victimize & breakup the FAMILY. The STATE wants to own and manipulate your children from an early age...




posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
This is ridiculous!! How can someone do such things. In this video they talk about how this couple was wrongly put down as sex offenders on the list and gotten their children taken away from them this is very true. What gives Wal-mart the right to invade in anyones privacy. I could understand if they were posed pictures of naked children but just because the children were in a bathtub when the picture was taken does not show proof that the children were being abused. People these days I swear. I mean was there any proof or evidence as to if the children were being pornographed or abused? I don't think so. Furthermore, it used to be a cute thing to take pictures of your children playing in the bathtub. The Wal-mart representative shouldn't have made false accussations before determining the facts first. I mean it can also depend on the age of the children as well. Anyways, bottom line should be mind your own business and do your job!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I cant believe any attorney would even put his name on that lawsuit???????????



75,000 dollars???? youre absolutely right atleast 1 million from walmart which they would get. sue the sheriffs office and dcps. Im thinking altogether 10 mill would be satisfactory. i think Im gonna go tyake some pics of pics I have of my children then get them developed somewhere. Then retire after Im arrested. Fn unreal what this country has come too!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by jiggerj

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


Even more to the point, why take pictures of them nude? What's to gain by it? I know if my mother ever showed naked pics of me when I was a kid I would be furious. There's just no need for it.


You were born nude.


Be furious with god ?


That's not the point at all and you know it. I'm not a prude, and nudity doesn't bother me seeing as we're all pretty much the same in our birthday suits. The point is there is no point in taking nude photos of children. What are you going to do, compare the nude photos of your kids with the nude photos taken by your neighbors of their children? Would you be excited to show your naked kids to friends and family? Of course not. So, what's the point? Do you NEED memories of your kids when they were naked?

Again, I don't think it's wrong or perverted. I just don't see the point in it.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Talk about over paranoid. Is walmart known to have pedophiles take in their kiddie porn? I can sense this employees concern, but unless he/she was hiding under a rock without any parents, he/she should have asked himself/herself, "Didn't my parents take pictures of me when I was a toddler in the bath?" "If these kids are victims of kiddie porn, why are they looking so happy?" I highly doubt children in kiddie porn are happy. Then, I wouldn't know I've never came across kiddie porn nor do I ever want to. So am I a criminal for snapping photos of my 2 year old taking a bath for memory purposes like my parents did to me? Or am I a criminal for finding it absolutely hilarious that after my daughters bath she decides to dance naked to music? This couple should go after walmart and CPS for being absolutely stupid. These children were happy going before, now they are forever traumatized because some air heads couldn't do their job correctly.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Horrific! Just one phone call from someone who thinks they are doing a good deed flips your world upside down. Like others have said in previous posts of the kids being checked out by doctors must of been scary no mom or daddy around.
This is the stinking world we live in. They was also put on a sex offenders list the whole time fighting for custody of their children for a year. Makes you want to join for jury duty and award this family 7.5 Million.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Forget Walmart and all that.

...What is up with them being on a sex offender list when they were found not guilty? I'm trying to figure out how exactly that works.

Or, if I misunderstood something, and they are now off the sex offender list, what is up with them being on the list before being found guilty.
edit on 10-3-2013 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I have naked pictures of each of my children moments after they were born. I cherish those photos, not because their naked, but because they are moments captured that help me go back in time to relive those moments. I show them to my children and say , "look, your first moments in the world." (everyone of them asked what was the white stuff! lol)

According to you I was wrong in wanting those photos to cherish....

I guess I should throw them out?

~ Cirque



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
The point is there is no point in taking nude photos of children. What are you going to do, compare the nude photos of your kids with the nude photos taken by your neighbors of their children? Would you be excited to show your naked kids to friends and family? Of course not. So, what's the point? Do you NEED memories of your kids when they were naked?

Again, I don't think it's wrong or perverted. I just don't see the point in it.


Agreed.

And add to the fact that the simple fact of the matter is that it's a grey area. It's almost 100% certain to be just parents taking innocent photos not even thinking about what other people are going to think but the instant someone else sees those pictures, all bets are off.

Most people really do think in black and white and pictures of naked kids is just not something you want your name to be associated with. It might not be fair but it just is.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


But wouldn't that make you the pervert? I mean seriously. If parents are taking pictures for memories of their life as parents cataloging their children's progress through life...and you happen to come upon them and see something sexual...

Doesn't that make YOU the pervert?

I'm just wondering, where is the line drawn?

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by corsair00
 


# off, this has nothing to do with Christianity you arrogant asswipe.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


Originally posted by Char-Lee

The sad thing to me, is a caring person and their boss who gained nothing but tried to protect kids will never try again.

right. because a pedophile is going to develop illegal nude photos at walmart instead of just using a digital camera and printer.





400 pictures, maybe they forgot those were on there. I don't know, I don't care, I feel the process was followed people cared about kids that is a good thing.


"oopps honey i left the pedo pics in with the other vacation pics. what will we do now? hopefully they won't notice." try another explanation, one with a little realism.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


The point is that you don't know hardly anything about this case.

We know what the judge thought about the case......

In October 2008, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the photos were innocent shots taken during the children's bath time, and he immediately awarded physical custody back to the parents. The Demarees, who had no criminal history, were never charged.

Link to better article
edit on 11-3-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Just a bit of extra information from a more descriptive article.


In August 2008, Child Protective Services removed the girls from their home — splitting them up in foster homes until their grandparents obtained custody - for five weeks.

So they were taken from the parents AND split up?



In October 2008, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the photos were innocent shots taken during the children's bath time, and he immediately awarded physical custody back to the parents.

However the investigation continued....


But the investigation by Child Protective Services continued for months afterwards, during which the couple was urged by CPS to seek counseling. Videotapes and other photos taken from the Demarees' home were also examined and introduced as evidence, despite a child sex abuse expert's opinion that they "do not constitute exploitative exhibitions or sexual conduct."



As CBS Affiliate KPHO correspondent Steve Filmer reported last September, the Demerees sued Arizona, the state Attorney General's Office and the city of Peoria for $8.4 million.

As was pointed out earlier it was damages + 75k.


They also sued Walmart for not informing them of a company policy allowing employees to turn any customer's pictures they deem "questionable" over to police.

Seems legit.

Link to article
edit on 11-3-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
64
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join