Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
64
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimcam
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I feel like everyone is on the 'WAL-MART Blame' wagon here. How would you all feel if you saw a man bring in a roll of pictures of several little girls naked (or close to it) and you had no idea it was the father? What if it turned out that he was a predator and you did nothing? It is not the responsibility of Wal-Mart to investigate and determine if the act was lewd, it is the responsibility of CPS or whichever agency they contacted. These children's parent should have been interviewed and then everything dropped. The failure is not Wal-Mart or their employee.

S&F for the article OP!


No one will listen.

No one gives a darn about facts.


Detectives said the photos depicted the girls, ages 1 1/2 to 5 at the time, in "posed" positions of nudity and showed "close-up views" of their genitalia. Read more: www.azcentral.com...



www.azcentral.com...

The pictures in question are NOT the ones in towels all sweet why can't people get that through their heads...the photos in question cannot be shown!. If anyone listens on the video you get a hint of what the pictures that shocked a photo worker were like. Three little girls with laying down on the floor naked with their legs apart..Mom says as much Dad was there. The oldest school age.

Everyone would rather think that a photo worker who sees thousands of photo a week and was "shocked" by these photos is ignorant, the boss they would have consulted before taken action "designated by law in our state" the police who looked at the pictures and the child protection agency who enough in fear for the children not to leave them to be told by possible abusers that they better not tell.

No innocent looking bath photos set this off.


People put down all workers of a business how ignorant! The same worker that work at Walgreen's or any other place in town, it is a job and has insurance. So if you stop being a waitress or Safeway checker and go to Walmart to do the same, now you are stupid and pitiful...what a stupid thing to say.

I am getting the impression most here would feel that if they are YOUR kids you can sell all the pictures you want of your children and it should be only your business.

Keeping children safe comes before all else in my book, seems I am in a distinct minority in that feeling.
edit on 11-3-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Char-Lee

You don't assume anything... you protect the kids. Have you seen the evidence.


They didn't protect the kids. They traumatized the kids and subjected them to a genital examination.

The kids didn't need protecting from the parents - they needed protected from the Child Protection agency.



Yes well if you has sick parents maybe you would feel differently. Who is going to stop them if they are selling pictures of you...do you think that is a parents right? The persons who saw the photos clearly found them extreme. YOU did not see them!



And neither did YOU.

And yet... In spite of what a judge ruled, you will assume the worst based on...? A Wal-Mart (see something say something mentality) employees over-reaction. Okaaaayyy....

I'll go with the judge. But hey... We all have our baggage I guess. Besides it's more fun to jump up and down all indignant than actually think something through.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by violet

Yes I agree but these days the sharing is not just with friends and family.
Current technology has to be taken into consideration.

I trust you find it ok to take perverts into consideration when sending children off to school on their own? You run through the list of don'ts.
Maybe its just me and a few others that feel we should assess safety precautions with every situation regarding our children? I hope you think of it on Halloween as well, when you say to your child not to let a stranger invite them in.

Again I'm only saying this because these pictures caused a sensation. The parents were investigated for child pedophelia.. Of course the children should not have been taken in the manner they were.

You are all assuming these photos were as innocent as the parents claim them to be. One article said "3 of the photos can't be shown". Why is that?
edit on 10-3-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)


When my kids were young (grown now) it was before the days of " a pedophile around every corner" and yet I walked my kids to the bus stop each morning and put them on the bus myself until they were teens. Trick or treating? I accompanied them on Halloween as well. I take my grandchild each year now. Just what exactly are you trying to insinuate? Getting defensive is no excuse for insinuation.

In my reply I was addressing your opinion about people posting videos, etc. of their kids doing the "latest dance" or whatever and how pedophiles could be getting their jollies to them, and how the parents are putting the children in a "dangerous situation" by posting them. My guess is yes, some pervert is probably getting all excited watching them- but somewhere else another pervert is getting excited watching little Johnny or Susie playing on the swings and slides at the playground. I will say again- people should not have to consider pervert's reactions to every single pic or video they take of their kids. Pedos get excited over fully dressed kids doing absolutely nothing just as well. They are sick.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I guess the most honest answer - is because my children's nudity doesn't bring to mind sexuality. If I take a snapshot of my kids at bath time, it's to capture a memory. The moment their born, their first bath, first bowl of spaghetti to tackle on their own, first time crawling, walking...

It doesn't even occur to me to think of it sexually. That's why I question the person who IS seeing sexuality in photos of children. I certainly wouldn't be wanting the walmart tech to baby sit my kids. Which is why my children have never been in day care, or babysat by any other than their grandparents and aunt/uncles. I know the family values because we came from that nucleus. Sure we live poorer than other families, but it's the price I pay to have four children with one man, and married for 15 years. It's totally bizarre and damaging to the bonding of a nuclear family to point the finger at parents! Particularly, if there weren't circumstances suggesting a possible abusive dynamics or suggestion of dysfunction. (i.e. stepfather, divorced mothers boyfriend. Uncle or other family member living with the nucleus family.)

It's such a complicated and important issue. I come from a sexually abuse free family. On both sides. So it's hard to envision or put myself in the victims shoes and really identify with incest. It's an abhorrent idea. It makes the skin crawl. So I have to trust trained professionals in that field of work to do the necessary investigation into the matter and hope they make the right call. It sounds like, ultimately, the parents were cleared and thank god they have their children back.

I know that society is sick right now. It's information overload with a desire to have a say in everything. With the explosion of social media, a lot of deviant behavior is being fed. Bullying being the worst. Sexual deviance being the scariest. It's best in a world such as the one we live in, to be private. Because everyone is interested in telling everybody else, " This is what we should do. I'm right. It should be this way. I'm more superior to you. And YOU are wrong." I mean this in a general sense - is of the mentality many express. The world is, just utterly, in a state of madness!

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Char-Lee

You don't assume anything... you protect the kids. Have you seen the evidence.


They didn't protect the kids. They traumatized the kids and subjected them to a genital examination.

The kids didn't need protecting from the parents - they needed protected from the Child Protection agency.



Yes well if you has sick parents maybe you would feel differently. Who is going to stop them if they are selling pictures of you...do you think that is a parents right? The persons who saw the photos clearly found them extreme. YOU did not see them!



And neither did YOU.

And yet... In spite of what a judge ruled, you will assume the worst based on...? A Wal-Mart (see something say something mentality) employees over-reaction. Okaaaayyy....

I'll go with the judge. But hey... We all have our baggage I guess. Besides it's more fun to jump up and down all indignant than actually think something through.


I only pray the judge did the right thing and the girls are ok for real.

Most Mothers don't even know when the father is abusing the children, may be innocent to her and not to him. I would not take that chance with my daughters.

To may cases and to many children to count. How hard is it to put cloths on your little girls in the presence of their dad when they are not infants any longer and make sure? is a picture worth the risk you husband may be attracted and you not know...it happens all the time!


Nicole told her mother, in a burst of tears, what had been going on at her father’s house. Her father was arrested for child rape. The police asked Nicole whether he took pictures. She said yes, but that she didn’t think he showed them to anyone. A few months later, while her father was out on bail, Nicole was using a computer he gave her to work on a presentation for Spanish class when she came across a file with a vulgar name that she couldn’t open


www.nytimes.com...

WHY would the police who continued to pursue this do so if they were towel covered sweet daddies girl pictures...why does everyone not LOOK at the amount of this pilling up in our world!

Stop with the it is all innocent and LOOK!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
Most Mothers don't even know when the father is abusing the children, may be innocent to her and not to him. I would not take that chance with my daughters.

To may cases and to many children to count. How hard is it to put cloths on your little girls in the presence of their dad when they are not infants any longer and make sure? is a picture worth the risk you husband may be attracted and you not know...it happens all the time!



Categorizing all fathers as potential rapists and child molesters in one blanket statement?
I seriously hope you never have children, and if you do decide to that you seek mental help before doing so. You have what could potentially become a serious mental illness on many levels thinking the way that you do.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I think parents should be able to catch the "Kodak" moment on their
babies...Sorry I have not had time to thoroughly read the whole thread.

Prior to the internet things were very different & photos could not be
exchanged or shown & viewed like they can be today. I have only seen
the 2 photos presented here on this thread & not the video.

Here are questions to consider & I apologize if it's already been discussed.

1) Maybe the couple only went for $75K since they lost the 1st round?
It also looks sketchy that they are not asking for more money.

2) At what age does it become inappropriate to take nude photos of you kids?
the oldest was 5 yrs old, that could definitely be a trigger & from talking
with others 3 yrs would be pushing it...

I'm not saying I agree, just things to consider prior to judgement. Thinking
back being the age of going into 1st grade & having a nude photo taking with
me mother or father seems so wrong as you are aware & not an innocent little baby.

I definitely would be asking for bloody more than a million $$. The way things are now
he could easily lose his job & never be rehired any where due to the controversy.

Wonder if the old Coppertone commercials made the baby photos more popular, LOL!

Cheers
Ektar



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I believe Walmart has told there employees to report photos of nude kids. About 10 years ago a Walmart employee was arrested with 100s of photos of nude children on his computer.

This employee had been collecting photos for years as people came in to get photos of there kids developed.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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


This is the problem with the "Creep Thumpers" in our criminal justice system. they carry their prejudices and stereotypes with them everwhere, and justify their poor decisions by telling themselves and anyone who will listen, "They are all the same; they all do it," without thinking about individual cases and different choises or standeards than their own.

Some of the greatest art works and funniest commercials involve naked children. Other nations and cultures see no problem with nudity, per se.

Some (many?) parents let their children run around, swim or take baths without being clothed! Some parents do so themselves, and are not ashamed or afraid of bare skin. And they are not criminals or psycho misfits.
The are your neighbors, co-workers, teachers, service providers, law enforcers. These people are chameleons; I've seen them for more than 50 years.

The last thing we need are "Creep Thumpers" behind the register at WalMart, driving a desk at CPS, or doing "intake" at the D.A.'s office. God save us from the idiots who think their personal defects qualify them to judge others.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 



To may cases and to many children to count. How hard is it to put cloths on your little girls in the presence of their dad when they are not infants any longer and make sure? is a picture worth the risk you husband may be attracted and you not know...it happens all the time!



Funny thing, every one of the perverts I ever prosecuted ALWAYS confused and equated nudity with sexuality; and none of the parents I've known EVER did.

Sometimes, projection reveals more about the critic than the subject.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
As a mother, this makes me SO mad. I have plenty of photos of my daughter in the bath, her first bath, her first big bath, ones where she just looks adorable so I take a photo, plenty of her running around the house in just a nappy etc etc. I would be so hurt for someone to assume our intentions were anything more sinister than just a mother & father loving their child. Obviously it's smart to be aware of the people you have around your child, but if some little turd at the local photo development store tried to insinuate my parter or myself had dodgy motives I would hit the roof.

I don't shoot film, and I DON'T print photos I wouldn't feel comfortable having whoever develops them see them (but as a photographer, I do go through a pro printer) even so, I usually don't print any of my daughter where she's not dressed, and if she's shirtless, it's neck up portrait printing only, same with sharing on sites like flickr etc. No nipples, no butt. Maybe so many people do similar nowdays, people assume anyone that does print a photo with their child semi/naked must have ulterior motives?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bkaust
 


"The world is full of fools and faint hearts; and yet everyone has courage enough to bear the misfortunes, and wisdom enough to manage the affairs, of his neighbor." ~Benjamin Franklin

Managing the affairs of other people, is the defining principle...of the unprincipled. Or, as they are better known..."Creep Thumpers.".
edit on 11-3-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I have already said earlier in this post as a parent I see nothing wrong with naked bathtime pics of your children.

But another thought occured to me, doesn't seem wierd that Walmart employees or any photo printing shop would even look at your pictures? I'm not sure how photo machines work these days, but years ago I would go help out in the Customer service department for the market I worked for and they had a developing machine. If I recall the machine spits out the roll of pics, we put them in the customers envolope for pick-up. Sure I guess we would see a few of the pics, but we never looked through them.

A little off topic....but also years ago my ex husband took a pic of me in Hawaii on our Honeymoon. I was topless, wearing a lei...anyways, I manage to cover my nipples with my arms before he takes the shot...but the wierd thing was when we got back our pictures, there was 6 copies of that photo in our package, WTF..
This was before the day of digital cameras and cell phones...maybe the guy thought is funny...I don't know....but I thought it was wierd. Certainly agree with one thing....don't take private family pics to a developing center...



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I have already said earlier in this post as a parent I see nothing wrong with naked bathtime pics of your children.

But another thought occured to me, doesn't seem wierd that Walmart employees or any photo printing shop would even look at your pictures? I'm not sure how photo machines work these days, but years ago I would go help out in the Customer service department for the market I worked for and they had a developing machine. If I recall the machine spits out the roll of pics, we put them in the customers envolope for pick-up. Sure I guess we would see a few of the pics, but we never looked through them.

A little off topic....but also years ago my ex husband took a pic of me in Hawaii on our Honeymoon. I was topless, wearing a lei...anyways, I manage to cover my nipples with my arms before he takes the shot...but the wierd thing was when we got back our pictures, there was 6 copies of that photo in our package, WTF..
This was before the day of digital cameras and cell phones...maybe the guy thought is funny...I don't know....but I thought it was wierd. Certainly agree with one thing....don't take private family pics to a developing center...



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


and people like you who see guilt every where it isnt are part of the problem,over zealous city employees who have see some bad things so they assume every one is guilty tell proved innocent.if your really a cps employee( which i doubt by your obvious projection of sexuality of minors) it makes me scared for the family's you come in contact with as your bias shines through.perhaps you should find new work as your obviously burnt out from what you claim to have seen.

luckily for the family and more importantly the children in question the judge realized how ludicrous this case was and i hope the family sues wall mart,cps and the city of Peoria for all they can take from them(hey least if they win millions in damages the kids will get a quality education and a funny story to go with their naked baby pictures)taking children away from parents who have committed no crimes nor even charged with any crimes is a travesty hope all employees of cps that had a hand in this are fired and made to find a new line of work where there evident lack of common sense wont effect as many innocent lives



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Sad story. I recall something from a few years ago when a family lost their kids because they had a photo developed of the mother breastfeeding the baby.

jonathanturley.org... d-breastfeeding/

Crazy people.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   


Funny thing, every one of the perverts I ever prosecuted ALWAYS confused and equated nudity with sexuality; and none of the parents I've known EVER did.
reply to post by jdub297
 



Very true. I just see a carpet-threatening poop machine when I see a naked toddler, not a sexual object.

Plenty of human cultures regard nakedness as a normal state for very young kids. I didn't start forcing my streaker of a daughter to wear clothes in the house until she hit four. Skin is easier to clean



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


well,

NEVER use walmart. They dont believe in privacy, they then shouldnt believe in our money.

I will never use them. This is a good reason why.

Instead of suing for money, how about they sue to make it illegal for another person to look at your photos.

That would be better. Stop the source of the problem.

Photo paper, and you own computer and printer. much better.



EDIT:
as far as the pictures being "close ups" of genitalia, or "posed"....I doubt the judge would have found them to be innocent if that was the case.

They WERE innocent bath time pictures. Hence why the parents were cleared and why walmart was shown to have acted badly.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 

epic. Very well said.

edit on 12-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This Wal-Mart employee should be fired for being retarded. I mean come on, pictures of this family's kids with towels on like they just got out of the bath or a swimming pool and they deemed it pornographic? We are on the verge of complete social collapse in this "grand" country.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I'm not sure how photo machines work these days, but years ago I would go help out in the Customer service department for the market I worked for and they had a developing machine. If I recall the machine spits out the roll of pics, we put them in the customers envolope for pick-up. Sure I guess we would see a few of the pics, but we never looked through them.


Most developing centers today that I know of look through your photos to make sure they aren't copyrighted, or of pornographic nature like this pathetic Wal-Mart employee thought. I think it should be illegal for people to look through your photos when you get them developed. One reason why I have photo paper and a printer






top topics



 
64
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join